Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about the changing burdens in computer software copyrightability;
- a blog post about potential ethical dilemmas artificial intelligence presents to patent attorneys; and
- an article about a petition for certiorari that “outlined a confusing procedural history that arguably mirrors the broader confusion over Section 101.”
Forrest A. Jones, Matthew S. Johnson, and Margaret A. Esquenet co-authored an article for the Finnegan Incontestable Blog about the change in burdens in computer software copyrightability. Jones, Johnson, and Esquenet explained how SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited “will likely reinforce a burden-shifting scheme in copyright infringement actions, where a copyright holder should be prepared to substantiate the copyrightability of specific elements of its copyright.” For more information about this decision, check out our opinion summary.
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO about the ongoing ethical issues that artificial intelligence presents to patent attorneys. Crouch highlighted how, after the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Thaler v. Vidal, the rule adopted by the USPTO and the Federal Circuit “that US patent laws require a human inventor” will continue to prevail. Crouch expressed concern “for the role of patent attorneys and the upcoming ethical dilemmas—that patent attorneys will be prompted to bury the truth about AI contributions within their patent applications.” For more details on the Federal Circuit’s opinion, see our opinion summary.
Eileen McDermott posted an article with IPWatchdog discussing the petition for certiorari in CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc. McDermott highlighted how CareDx’s petition “outlined a confusing procedural history that arguably mirrors the broader confusion over Section 101.”