Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article how the Federal Circuit recently “denied [a] bid for a full court review of a panel decision that reinstated a $177 million jury verdict” for patent infringement, “while one dissenting judge said the panel’s holding ‘creates confusion’ over enablement standards for patent method claims”;
- a blog post reporting how Crocs has asked the Supreme Court to decide “whether an agency disposition is final as to some issues, thus triggering deadlines for judicial review, while other issues decided in the same disposition remain subject to further executive or administrative review”;
- an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently “issued a precedential decision affirming a finding of invalidity of certain claims [a] wireless communications patent, but holding that the district court’s reasoning, which focused on indefiniteness, was erroneous”; and
- an article highlighting how a “Wisconsin congressman unveiled a bill Wednesday aimed at modernizing the law governing misconduct investigations for federal judges and limit indefinite suspensions of jurists which judicial advocates say amount to ‘stealth impeachments.’”
Rae Ann Varona wrote an article for Law360 explaining how the Federal Circuit recently “denied [a] bid for a full court review of a panel decision that reinstated a $177 million jury verdict” for patent infringement, “while one dissenting judge said the panel’s holding ‘creates confusion’ over enablement standards for patent method claims.” According to Varona, Judge Dyk, “dissenting from the denial of petition for rehearing en banc, said that the case ‘presents important questions as to the scope of the enablement requirement for method claims.'” For more information, check out the order in Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for Patently-O reporting how Crocs has asked the Supreme Court to decide “whether an agency disposition is final as to some issues, thus triggering deadlines for judicial review, while other issues decided in the same disposition remain subject to further executive or administrative review.” According to Crouch, “Crocs identifies a circuit split: the D.C. and Fourth Circuits treat an agency order as final all at once, while the Ninth Circuit and now the Federal Circuit allow issue-by-issue finality.” For more information, check out the case page in Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission.
Eileen McDermott filed an article with IPWatchdog discussing how the Federal Circuit recently “issued a precedential decision affirming a finding of invalidity of certain claims [a] wireless communications patent, but holding that the district court’s reasoning, which focused on indefiniteness, was erroneous.” McDermott highlighted how Chief Judge Moore explained “that ‘indefiniteness is not the same as impossibility.'” Chief Judge Moore, McDermott continued, “explained that ‘there is no per se rule that a claim covering inoperable embodiments is necessarily indefinite.’” For more information, check out the opinion in Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Benjamin S. Weiss published an article with Courthouse News Service highlighting how a “Wisconsin congressman unveiled a bill Wednesday aimed at modernizing the law governing misconduct investigations for federal judges and limit indefinite suspensions of jurists which judicial advocates say amount to ‘stealth impeachments.’” Weiss notes “his measure, an overhaul of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, was a response to what he characterized as ‘major flaws’ in the law exposed by a misconduct investigation into 99-year-old Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman.”