Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article reporting how a “coalition of conservative groups are asking senators to swiftly pass two bipartisan bills meant to protect intellectual property rights and promote American innovation”;
- an announcement that registration has opened for a symposium at American University featuring Judge Stark that will be “composed of various panels to discuss developing legal issues exclusive to the Federal Circuit”;
- a blog post discussing “three separate orders” recently issued by the Federal Circuit “denying petitions for writs of mandamus related to venue transfer decisions”; and
- an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision rejecting “Google LLC’s bid for review of a ruling . . . in light of a U.S. Supreme Court case that abolished deference to government agencies.”
James Lynch filed an article with National Review reporting how a “coalition of conservative groups are asking senators to swiftly pass two bipartisan bills meant to protect intellectual property rights and promote American innovation.” Lynch explains that “35 conservative groups” have sent a letter to the the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Intellectual Property Subcommittee “urging the committee to pass bipartisan legislation meant to end abuses to the patent challenge system and clarify legal standards for patent claims.”
The Federal Circuit Bar Association announced that registration has opened for a symposium that will be “composed of various panels to discuss developing legal issues exclusive to the Federal Circuit.” Notably, Judge Stark will appear as the event’s featured speaker. The event will occur Friday, October 4, 2024 at American University.
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for Patently-O, discussing “three separate orders” recently issued by the Federal Circuit “denying petitions for writs of mandamus related to venue transfer decisions.” Crouch suggests “[t]hese cases highlight a trend . . . of the court stepping-back from its prior aggressive mandamus docket.” According to Crouch,”[t]his is a shift away from a the past few years when the court had a much more aggressive mandamus docket.”
An article posted by Law360 analyzes a recent Federal Circuit decision rejecting “Google LLC’s bid for review of a ruling . . . in light of a U.S. Supreme Court case that abolished deference to government agencies.” The authors explain how Google sought review of a 2015 Federal Circuit en banc case given that that case relied upon Chevron, which “requir[es] deference to the ‘reasonable’ legal interpretations of ambiguous statutes by federal agencies.” The authors note how the Supreme Court recently overturned Chevron.