Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article reporting how the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday “refused to take up a case in which Google argued that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has exceeded its authority by using the age of patents as a reason to refuse to review them”;
- a blog post highlighting how “eligibility is again about a fifth of the PTAB’s appeal docket . . . and the Board has nearly stopped raising Section 101 ‘new grounds of rejection'”;
- a blog post announcing how the publication of “Unfettered Invention: How the X Patents Sparked Early American Technology”; and
- an article noting how a recent motion in a patent case argued a “presentation of legal opinions” by retired judge Kathleen O’Malley of the Federal Circuit “was inappropriate.”
Ryan Davis filed an article with Law360 reporting how the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday “refused to take up a case in which Google argued that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has exceeded its authority by using the age of patents as a reason to refuse to review them.” Davis notes how this “case is one of several pending at the high court in which litigants are challenging USPTO policies on when patent review requests can be denied.” You can check out the case page in Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp. on this website.
Dennis Crouch published a blog post for Patently-O highlighting how “eligibility is again about a fifth of the PTAB’s appeal docket . . . and the Board has nearly stopped raising Section 101 ‘new grounds of rejection.'” Crouch explains how he has “been parsing ex parte PTAB decisions — about 130 k for this post running from 2009 through September 2026 — looking particularly at the eligibility cases.”
Michael Risch authored a blog post for Written Description announcing the publication of “Unfettered Invention: How the X Patents Sparked Early American Technology.” Risch suggests that, “[f]or patent attorneys and IP professionals, the book offers a rare look at what American patent practice looked like before examination existed.”
Mike Scarcella wrote an article for Reuters noting how a recent motion in a patent case argued a “presentation of legal opinions” by retired judge Kathleen O’Malley of the Federal Circuit “was inappropriate.” According to Scarcella, the motion said “Judge O’Malley’s usurpation of the jury is particularly harmful given her position as a former jurist.”