FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an ABC News article discussing why Judge Newman “was barred from hearing cases for at least a year”;
• a CBS News article discussing how Judge Newman “was suspended from hearing cases for one year after she refused to undergo medical examinations and turn over medical records”;
• a Law 360 article highlighting how some are calling Judge Newman’s suspension “an unfortunate outcome in a difficult case”; and
• an “Open Letter to Circuit Judges on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” authored by Randall R. Rader, former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article from the Washington Post about Judge Newman’s suspension; and
• a similar article from the New York Times discussing “[t]he order suspending Judge Newman for one year.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing how a “trio of amicus briefs Thursday threw support behind a cert petition filed last month” seeking to reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Vidal, a patent case.
• an article highlighting Federal Circuit Judge Newman’s appearance at a “conference on Friday to urge more scrutiny into how patent law could affect the development of vaccines and other groundbreaking technologies”; and
• an article noting how amicus briefs were recently filed at the Supreme Court in a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article highlighting how a “former Federal Circuit Judge predicts shake-up on” the Federal Circuit;
• an article discussing “the pending ‘Vidal v. Elster‘ Supreme Court case and whether a provision of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment by barring registration of a trademark that contains criticism of a government official or public figure”; and
• an article analyzing a petition to the Supreme Court arguing that “the Federal Circuit failed to use the Supreme Court’s two-step” test for patent eligibility in ChromaDex Inc. v. Elysium Health Inc.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing a new report on Federal Circuit Judge Newman’s health;
• another article highlighting a Supreme Court petition urging review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Personalized Media Communications v. Apple; and
• a third article about a recent decision from the Federal Circuit “affirm[ing] a Texas federal judge’s decision canceling patent claims” asserted “in lawsuits targeting dating app maker Bumble Trading LLC and several other tech firms.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article highlighting how the Federal Circuit judges investigating Judge Newman’s fitness asked “a Washington, D.C. federal court late on Friday to dismiss Newman’s lawsuit challenging the unusual probe”;
• an article discussing the argument by the special committee investigating Judge Newman that “the internal actions of the three-judge special committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit aren’t subject to judicial review”;
• an analysis of pending legislation entitled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, which according to former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel “would overturn Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions that scrambled settled law, excluding many worthy classes of inventions, such as medical diagnostic methods and advanced computer applications”; and
• a blog post taking the position “that gen-AI tools will face high patent eligibility obstacles absent inclusion of strong technical implementation details placed at least within the specification, but more likely within the claims themselves.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing different groups who “weighed in at the Federal Circuit on a legal campaign coming from a rival of General Motors that aims to change how courts make decisions about design patents”; and
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit decision “regarding how Patent Term Adjustment interacts with terminal disclaimers and obviousness-type double patenting.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article commenting on the impact of a Federal Circuit decision on “patent applicants and owners seeking to overcome obviousness challenges”;
• an article discussing a Federal Circuit decision in a list of upcoming Supreme Court cases; and
• an article about historic women on the federal bench, including Federal Circuit Judge Tiffany Cunningham.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing the importance of training federal judges to manage their law clerks;
• an article highlighting the potential for the Federal Circuit to shape patent law in a pending appeal at the Federal Circuit; and
• an article considering the impact of a recent decision of the Federal Circuit on government contract cases.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article commenting on the recently published transcript from Judge Newman’s hearing to determine whether Newman was “justified in not complying with an investigative committee’s request for medical records”;
• an article discussing a failed mediation between Judge Newman and her “judicial colleagues on the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article highlighting a recent opinion from the Federal Circuit affirming a patent tribunal’s finding of invalidity for two cancer treatment patents.