Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing Judge Dyk’s “doubts . . . about . . . patents for non-caloric food sweeteners, suggesting the broad scope of the claims could cover thousands of unknown enzymes and might render the patent claims invalid”;
- an article exploring whether patent law’s “lead compound” rule “is in tension with other aspects of obviousness jurisprudence as set forth in decisions of the Federal Circuit itself”; and
- another article discussing the potential impact of a Fifth Circuit case on recent decisions by the Federal Circuit that “time to trial doesn’t matter much” in a motion to transfer venue.
Ryan Lynch authored an article for Law360 discussing Federal Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk’s “doubts . . . about . . . patents for non-caloric food sweeteners, suggesting the broad scope of the claims could cover thousands of unknown enzymes and might render the patent claims invalid.” According to Lynch, Judge Dyk said that claims were written “so broadly that they cover enzymes that haven’t yet been discovered.”
Roy Wepner wrote an article for IPWatchdog exploring whether patent law’s “lead compound” rule “is in tension with other aspects of obviousness jurisprudence as set forth in decisions of the Federal Circuit itself.” Wepner says the “‘lead compound’ construct has hardened into a bona fide Federal Circuit rule.”
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing the potential impact of a Fifth Circuit case on recent decisions by the Federal Circuit that “time to trial doesn’t matter much” in a motion to transfer venue. Shapiro indicates recent holdings by the Federal Circuit concerning venue in Texas “may be harder to sustain after TikTok.”