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 the Federal Circuit heard “arguments at law schools and courthouses around the San Francisco Bay Area this week”;
- an article highlighting “the intense debate over restoring injunctive relief for patent holders,” noting how “two different camps within the pro-strong-patent rights community have emerged”;
- an article discussing yesterday’s oral argument in a case addressing whether inter partes review proceedings may consider abandoned patent applications published after the filing date of a patent under review; and
- a blog post discussing how the Patent Office “recently terminated proceedings in approximately 3,100 patent applications due to the fraudulent use of a practitioner’s signature.”
Ross Todd authored an article for ALM Law reporting how the Federal Circuit heard “arguments at law schools and courthouses around the San Francisco Bay Area this week.” As an example, Todd explains that “Judges Timothy Dyk, Raymond Chen and Kara Stoll heard oral arguments in three patent cases Tuesday on the campus of UC Berkeley School of Law.” Todd explains how hearing appeals in California is an effort to “meet its statutory requirement to provide ‘reasonable opportunities to citizens to appear before the court’ and reinforces its national jurisdiction.”
Jeffrey Depp submitted an article to IP Watchdog highlighting “the intense debate over restoring injunctive relief for patent holders,” noting how “two different camps within the pro-strong-patent rights community have emerged.” According to Depp, “Corporate innovators and their supporters prefer the ‘Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive Patent Rights Act of 2024’ (RESTORE Act),” while “small innovators prefer the injunction fixes set forth in the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2024 (RALIA).” Depp explains that a central concern is whether RESTORE “abrogates the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.”
Michael Shapiro filed an article with Bloomberg Law discussing yesterday’s oral argument in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a case addressing whether inter partes review proceedings may consider abandoned patent applications published after the filing date of a patent under review. According to Shapiro, Judge Prost “called one of the statutes governing the critical date for prior art abandoned patents ‘confusing’ and said Lynk Labs’ argument ‘had some heft,'” while Judges Lourie and Start “expressed reservations about upending the PTO’s longstanding practice.” We will post our argument recap next week.
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO discussing how the Patent Office “recently terminated proceedings in approximately 3,100 patent applications due to the fraudulent use of a practitioner’s signature.” According to Crouch, “[t]his mass termination, announced on October 2, 2024, stems from an investigation that uncovered misconduct involving the unauthorized use of a registered patent agent’s electronic signature,” where the affected applicants were “almost all Chinese companies.” Crouch suggests that, “[w]hile the USPTO’s actions aim to protect the integrity of the patent system, they have also raised concerns among some practitioners and applicants who represent foreign applicants.”