Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a podcast episode discussing the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge;
- a blog post about the effects a recent Federal Circuit precedential opinion has on interference proceedings for post-America Invents Act patents; and
- an article about “evolving standards for stipulations to avoid discretionary denial” in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
David Schultz posted a podcast episode for Bloomberg Law discussing the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge. In the episode, Schultz points out how “we hear from Newman herself about why she doesn’t want to retire, why she thinks her fellow judges are going after her, and about what she can still contribute to the federal justice system.”
Steve Brachmann wrote a blog post for IPWatchdog about the effects the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential opinion in SNIPR Technologies Limited v. Rockefeller University has on interference proceedings for post-AIA patents. He notes how “the Federal Circuit found that” the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “erroneously subjected SNIPR’s patents to interference proceedings that Congress meant to eliminate when it enacted the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011.” He also highlights how “[l]egislative history cited by” the Federal Circuit “established Congress’ view that interference proceedings were lengthy, expensive and unnecessary under a first-inventor-to-file system.”
David McCombs, Eugene Goryunov, and Jonathan Bowser authored an article for Reuters about “evolving standards for stipulations to avoid discretionary denial” in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. They point out how the “Supreme Court and the . . . Federal Circuit have afforded the PTAB broad discretion to deny institution of a petition for reasons other than the merits.” For example, they note how, “in recent years, the PTAB has used its discretion to deny institution of a petition when a district court may decide validity issues before the PTAB would.” The article then proceeds to discuss strategies for petitioners to avoid “discretionary denials.”