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 Supreme Court recently “rejected a bid to review decisions invalidating a patent owned by a background-check software maker that had argued that an appellate judge’s suspension had hurt its case”;
- a blog post highlighting two Supreme Court petitions the author suggests “provide [an] opportunity to address a longstanding problem with the Federal Circuit’s practice of issuing no-opinion summary affirmances in patent cases”; and
- an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s decision “to rehear a high-profile decision that revived an artificial intelligence company’s protest over its exclusion from a $376.4 million procurement.”
Michael Shapiro published an article for Bloomberg Law reporting how the Supreme Court recently “rejected a bid to review decisions invalidating a patent owned by a background-check software maker that had argued that an appellate judge’s suspension had hurt its case.” As explained by Shapiro, in Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, “Miller Mendel Inc.’s patent was deemed abstract under Section 101 of the Patent Act under the high court’s two-step patent eligibility test from its 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l.” He explained how in its petition Miller Mendel “argued that the Federal Circuit decision should be reversed in part because perhaps the biggest critic of the Alice decision on the court, Judge Pauline Newman, was suspended and thus not able to sit on the panel that decided the case against it.”
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for Patently-O, highlighting two Supreme Court petition he says “provide [an] opportunity to address a longstanding problem with the Federal Circuit’s practice of issuing no-opinion summary affirmances in patent cases.” Crouch explains how in both “ParkerVision v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., No. 24-518, and Island Intellectual Property LLC v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., No. 24-461, the petitioners challenge the Federal Circuit’s use of Rule 36 judgments—where the court simply affirms the lower tribunal’s decision without any written opinion.” He suggests “[t]he timing of these petitions is particularly significant, as both cases have recently received substantial amicus support highlighting distinct but complementary concerns about the Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 practice.” As shown on FedCircuitBlog’s Supreme Court petitions page, however, the Supreme Court has repeatedly denied petitions raising similar concerns in recent years.
Daniel Wilson wrote an article for Law360 discussing the Federal Circuit’s decision “to rehear a high-profile decision that revived an artificial intelligence company’s protest over its exclusion from a $376.4 million procurement.” Wilson explained how in Percipient.AI, Inc. v. United States the court “granted the federal government’s September petition for en banc rehearing of a three-judge panel’s split 2-1 June ruling, which found that Percipient.ai Inc. was an ‘interested party’ able to protest the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s SAFFIRE procurement despite not bidding on that contract.” According to Wilson, the court is “seeking to clarify who counts as an ‘interested party’ that can protest contract awards.”