Senate Confirms Tiffany P. Cunningham, First Black Circuit Court Judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – On BlackEnterprise.com, Andrea Blackstone reports on Tiffany Cunningham’s Senate confirmation and classifies it as a “historic moment . . . in the America judicial system.”
Thoughts on Tiffany Cunningham’s Confirmation to the CAFC – Eileen McDermott reports on what Tiffany Cunningham’s appointment “might mean for the [Federal Circuit] long term.”
They Patented a Better SandBox — Obviousness IPRs – Dennis Crouch reports the Federal Circuit decision in Oren Tech v. Proppant Express, where the court rejected “a PTAB IPR decision because the precise obviousness argument regarding a functional limitation was not expressly stated. . . [and has] another go-round with the PTAB failing to consider commercial success.”
Fed Circ Revives Chemours Polymer Patents, Reverses PTAB Ruling – On Reuters.com, Blake Brittain reports on Chemours Company FC LLC v. Daikin Industries Ltd., where “Daikin challenged patent validity based on earlier invention.”
Senate Confirms Tiffany P. Cunningham, First Black Circuit Court Judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Reported by Andrea Blackstone on BlackEnterprise.com
Andrea Blackstone reports on Tiffany Cunningham’s Senate confirmation on BlackEnterprise.com, stating that this was a historic moment for the Federal Circuit since “‘the nation’s top patent court [was] the only federal appeals court never to have a Black member.'” Blackstone comments on the many social media posts congratulating Cunningham, including Perkins Coie LLP, which said they “are proud to congratulate partner Tiffany Cunningham on her groundbreaking confirmation . . . thank her for her many contributions . . .[and] wish [Cunningham] well as she embarks on this next chapter.”
Thoughts on Tiffany Cunningham’s Confirmation to the CAFC
Reported by Eileen McDermott on IPWatchDog.com
On IPWatchDog.com, Eileen McDermott asks “members of the IP community, and senators who voted for” Cunningham for their thoughts on what “Cunningham’s appointment might mean for the [Federal Circuit] long term.” Illinois Senator Dick Durbin indicated that “this is a truly historic confirmation.” Sangeeta G. Shah, an attorney at Brooks Kushman, says she is “elated to have a 20-year veteran patent litigator on the Federal Circuit bench, someone who intimately understands the unpredictability of the current patent landscape.” Tom Tillis, Republican Senator of North Carolina, announced he was “proud to vote to confirm Tiffany Cunningham to the Federal Circuit.” Additionally, Tillis said that “Ms. Cunningham will bring a wealth of experience to the bench, and I hope that as a Federal Judge she will take steps to bring clarity to our nation’s patent eligibility jurisprudence so that we can continue to be the world’s leading innovation economy.”
They Patented a Better SandBox — Obviousness IPRs
Reported by Dennis Crouch on PatentlyO.com
Dennis Crouch reports on Federal Circuit decision in Oren Tech v. Proppant Express where the court “has rejected the PTAB decision for two reasons: (1) the PTAB decision strayed too far from the grounds of unpatentability found in the petition; and (2) the PTAB improperly disregarded the commercial success of Oren’s container.” Crouch states towards the end of his article that this decision by the Federal Circuit “does not sit well with [him].”
Fed Circ Revives Chemours Polymer Patents, Reverses PTAB Ruling
Reported by Blake Brittain on Reuters.com
On Reuters.com, Blake Brittain comments on the Federal Circuit decision in Chemours Company FC LLC v. Daikin Industries Ltd., explaining that “Daikin Industries’ challenge to the patents’ validity failed because an earlier polymer patent didn’t render Chemours’ invention obvious.” Brittain explains that the opinion was written by Judge Reyna, saying “the the board ignored that the earlier patent ‘teaches away’ from the Chemours patents, making them non-obvious because an ordinary artisan would have been discouraged from using the technology in the way Chemours did.” Brittain highlights how Judge Dyk dissented in part, “arguing the earlier patent didn’t teach away from Chemours’ invention and . . . he would have remanded the case for a new obviousness analysis.”