FedCircuitBlog

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 recent Federal Circuit judicial council brief that “pushes back on Judge Newman’s arguments that her colleagues should have recused themselves from the investigation, that she should have been allowed on the council and that the council was acting beyond its judicial duties by acting as an administrative body”; and
• another article about a recent decision from the Patent and Trademark Office “that limits the effect of a 2015 Federal Circuit decision regarding the dates of earlier inventions cited in patent applications.”

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 the “Federal Circuit recently weighed in on the application of the [Administrative Procedure Act] in the context of two different [inter partes review proceedings;” and
• an article about a Supreme Court petition asking the Court “to reverse a ruling that made its patents ineligible for protection because they are too abstract.”

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

• an article discussing Judge Dyk’s “doubts . . . about . . . patents for non-caloric food sweeteners, suggesting the broad scope of the claims could cover thousands of unknown enzymes and might render the patent claims invalid”;
• an article exploring whether patent law’s “lead compound” rule “is in tension with other aspects of obviousness jurisprudence as set forth in decisions of the Federal Circuit itself”; and
• another article discussing the potential impact of a Fifth Circuit case on recent decisions by the Federal Circuit that “time to trial doesn’t matter much” in a motion to transfer venue.

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

• a blog post providing an analysis of the oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster, which “involved a provision in the federal Lanham Act that directs the Patent and Trademark Office . . . to refuse to register any mark that identifies ‘a particular living individual’”;
• an article discussing “an opinion dealing largely with how much a patent owner can rely on information and belief-based allegations rather than facts”; and
• an article calling a district court opinion “a decision based on ignorance of patent law that must be overturned.”

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 “California software company has warned that a venue dispute it lost at the Federal Circuit . . . has opened the door ‘for improper venue to be rectified by new facts arising any time throughout litigation’”;
• an article about “more than half a dozen amicus briefs” urging the Federal Circuit “to keep the [design patent] law as is in order to avoid major disruptions”; and
• an article about the future of AI, highlighting the Federal Circuit’s holding that “AI did not qualify as a human.”

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 the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office wants the D.C. Circuit to transfer a suit, which challenges a denial of a bid for a proposed rule that would cut down on unwarranted patent invalidity reviews, to the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article about how a “Dallas-area owner of a patent assertion firm asked the Federal Circuit to pause a rolling $200-a-day civil-contempt fine imposed against her after she refused to travel to Delaware to testify before a federal judge.”

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

• an article about how the “Federal Circuit . . . backed a pair of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions that said Netflix failed to prove that two streaming patents were invalid”; and
• an article discussing how “Google waived its right to respond to a petition for writ of certiorari . . . filed by the inventors of a method for protecting computers from malware.”

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 the recent suspension of Federal Circuit Judge Newman “shows need for judicial reform”;
• an article authored by retired Federal Circuit Judge Paul Michel discussing his “thirty-five-year perspective on Intellectual Property, and where we stand now”; and
• another article highlighting how in a recent panel discussion “[f]ormer Federal Circuit Judge Paul Redmond Michel warned inventors that proposed patent reform bills during this session of Congress will be ‘dead on arrival’ if the inventor community fails to unite.”

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

• an article about the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition “to review a February ruling . . . that held claims of ChromaDex, Inc.’s patent on an isolated form of vitamin B3 are directed to unpatentable subject matter under Section 101”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “vacated a $4.6 million award for lost profits” in a patent case; and
• an article highlighting a recent “fight over words” at the Federal Circuit in another patent case.

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

• an article about Judge Newman’s comment that “it’s time to reevaluate the America Invents Act, the landmark 2011 law that created new procedures for filing and challenging patents”;
• an article commenting on how Judge Newman “is considering an invitation to sit by designation in district court and oversee a trial after nearly four decades as an appellate judge”; and
• a blog post discussing “[t]he Federal Circuit’s new Finjan decision . . . focus[ing] attention on … patent law’s . . . ‘indefinite article shuffle.’”