Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a piece discussing how the Federal Circuit recently “said scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier will get another chance to show they ought to own the key patents on what many consider the defining biotechnology invention of the 21st century”;
- an article discussing how a panel of the D.C. Circuit “seemed skeptical” of Judge Newman’s argument “that a statute allowing courts to self-police instances of misconduct and disability is unconstitutional across the board”;
- a blog post criticizing a recent Federal Circuit decision that he says “appears to have unintentionally upended fundamental principles of [inter partes review] estoppel”; and
- a report that the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center filed an amicus brief with the Federal Circuit, urging the court to “review a decision rejecting Xencor’s application for an antibody patent.”
Antonio Regalado authored a piece for MIT Technology Review discussing how the Federal Circuit recently “said scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier will get another chance to show they ought to own the key patents on what many consider the defining biotechnology invention of the 21st century.” Regalado explains how the court’s decision is “a boost for the Nobelists, who had previously faced a strong of demoralizing reversals over the patent rights in both the US and Europe.” Regalado suggests the court’s decision is likely to “reopen the investigation into what was written in 13-year-old lab notebooks” and, in particluar, whether researcher Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard “based his research, in part, on what he had learned from Doudna and Charpentier.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in Broad Institute Inc. v. Regents of the University of California.
Michael Shapiro filed an article with Bloomberg Law discussing how a panel of the D.C. Circuit “seemed skeptical” of Judge Newman’s argument “that a statute allowing courts to self-police instances of misconduct and disability is unconstitutional across the board.” Shapiro noted how the panel “registered deep discomfort” accepting Judge Newman’s colleagues’ argument that the court “lacks authority to consider her arguments that the law was applied in her investigation unconstitutionally.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO criticizing a recent Federal Circuit decision that he says “appears to have unintentionally upended fundamental principles of [inter partes review] estoppel.” Crouch suggests the Federal Circuit’s ruling “threatens to undermine Congressional intent and, as a consequence, dramatically shift the [America Invents Act’s] balance in favor of IPR challengers and against patent owners.” According to Crouch, the panel showed “no signs” that it “recognized the far-reaching implications” of its interpretation. Crouch argues “this case presents compelling grounds for sua sponte panel or en banc rehearing before the precedent takes root.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in Ingenico v. IOENGINE.
Adam Lidgett reports on Law360 that the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center filed an amicus brief with the Federal Circuit, urging the court to “review a decision rejecting Xencor’s application for an antibody patent.” Lidgett highlighted how the cancer treatment centers argue “this case sets the precedent that only claims directed to a specific disease or condition are patentable, calling into question thousands of existing patents with analogous method claims.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in In re Xencor, Inc.