Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article describing how “Samsung Electronics Co. and Google LLC lodged an appellate protest of Trump administration changes that have sunk more than 200 patent challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
- a piece considering implications of the PTAB’s announcement that “all PTAB hearings will be held in person at the USPTO’s offices, absent a showing of good cause”;
- a blog post analyzing how “[a]bout half of the patents adjudicated in district courts and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are found invalid”; and
- a blog post suggesting a recent Federal Circuit decision “illustrates how the Federal Circuit appears to be increasingly disregarding the jury’s role in fact finding.”
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law describing how “Samsung Electronics Co. and Google LLC lodged an appellate protest of Trump administration changes that have sunk more than 200 patent challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.” Shapiro explained how on Monday the companies filed a petition for a writ of mandamus that “targets how the PTO rolled out new processes that replaced ones that favored a fulsome merits review of patent validity challenges filed at the agency’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”
Former PTAB Judge Amanda Wieker penned a piece for Law 360 considering implications of the PTAB’s announcement that “all PTAB hearings will be held in person at the USPTO’s offices, absent a showing of good cause.” Wieker explained how this change marks “a stark contrast to years of past practice” and suggested it “will require some adjustment and, undoubtedly, will leave some parties dissatisfied.”
Ron Katznelson wrote a blog post on IP Watchdog analyzing how “[a]bout half of the patents adjudicated in district courts and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are found invalid.” Katznelson suggested “there are those who infer a fallacy from such adjudication statistics.” He said “[a]larms should be raised when the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) buys into this fallacy . . . particularly because some members of Congress have been misled by the GAO on this issue in recent hearings on the USPTO.”
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post on PatentlyO suggesting a recent Federal Circuit decision “illustrates how the Federal Circuit appears to be increasingly disregarding the jury’s role in fact finding.” Crouch indicated the decision “demonstrates how the Federal Circuit’s regular disregard of conclusory expert testimony can vaporize what appear to be genuine factual disputes.”