Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post discussing how “[c]ourts continue to struggle with their use of evidence for claim construction” in patent cases;
- an article detailing how the “Senate’s April 5 confirmation of Winston & Strawn partner Kathi Vidal means the agency can finally make movement on pressing policy issues that have been in limbo while the leadership post remained vacant for more than a year”; and
- another article analyzing how the the Federal Circuit recently “criticized, but left intact, limits on when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can devise reasons to reject requests to amend patents.”
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO discussing how “[c]ourts continue to struggle with their use of evidence for claim construction” in patent cases. Crouch highlighted, however, that the Federal Circuit’s “recent case of Genuine Enable Technology v. Nintendo Co. . . . offers solace to careful patent prosecutors that the courts should not unduly extrapolate upon arguments distinguishing the prior art.”
Samantha Handler filed an article with Bloomberg Law detailing how the “Senate’s April 5 confirmation of Winston & Strawn partner Kathi Vidal means the agency can finally make movement on pressing policy issues that have been in limbo while the leadership post remained vacant for more than a year.” Handler noted that (1) “[s]orting out a $2 billion patent challenge tainted with sabotage claims” and (2) “shaping director review of administrative patent tribunal decisions” will “likely be at the top of the new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director’s to-do list.”
Ryan Davis published an article with Law360 analyzing how, in Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics, the Federal Circuit “criticized, but left intact, limits on when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can devise reasons to reject requests to amend patents.” Davis went on to explain that “the extent of the board’s freedom remains murky, though the new patent office director could clarify it.”