Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article and a blog post providing information on the recently released letter and order regarding the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge; and
- a blog post discussing whether obviousness is a question of law or fact.
Kelcee Griffis authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing the recently released letter and order regarding the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge. She discussed how the hearing related to the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge will remain closed to the public, noting that a “Federal Circuit panel shot down 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman’s request to make public a July hearing that will discuss her fitness to remain on the bench.” She discussed how the hearing will address “whether [Judge Newman] had good reason for not complying with a Judicial Council special committee’s request for a medical exam and the release of medical records.”
Eileen McDermott wrote a blog post for IPWatchdog related to the letter and order regarding the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge. She discussed how the “order explained that, while all previously articulated aspects of the investigation remain open and pending—including alleged misconduct related to Newman’s disclosure of a confidential employment dispute matter and alleged misconduct over ‘retaliatory, unprofessional, and abusive behavior towards her own and other court staff’—the investigation into whether Newman suffers from a disability ‘has been seriously impeded by Judge Newman’s refusal to undergo neurological and neuropsychological examinations, to provide medical records, and to sit for an interview with the Committee.’” She explained that “the Committee opted to focus on the narrower issue of whether Newman’s refusal to comply with these requests amounts to misconduct in hopes of soon making a recommendation to the Judicial Council.”
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for PatentlyO about whether obviousness is a question of law or fact. He highlighted the recent Federal Circuit en banc petition in Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, in which Roku argued “the panel majority’s analysis conflicts the Supreme Court’s repeated statement that obviousness is a question of law.” He also highlighted that “Roku suggests that the majority’s methodology could lead to undesirable substantive outcomes — allowing for patents on trivial distinctions from the prior art.”