FedCircuitBlog

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 “Congressional hearings scheduled for [last] Thursday to mark up several bills related to patents . . . have been postponed until after Election Day due to the Senate’s adjournment”;
• an article outlining “trends that practitioners, particularly litigators, would be wise to pay close attention to” related to eligibility and software patents; and
• a blog post reporting on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s announcement that there was “a significant error in its patent term adjustment (PTA) calculations, potentially affecting patents issued between March 19, 2024, and July 30, 2024.”

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 Newman’s suspension and a “report by Dr. Aaron G. Filler released Tuesday by Newman’s lawyers with the New Civil Liberties Alliance”;
• an article addressing the current state of software patent eligibility “since the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l“; and
• a blog post highlighting the Federal Circuit’s recent order granting a petition for en banc rehearing “focusing on the admissibility of expert testimony regarding patent damages.”

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

• an article reporting on how the Federal Circuit extended the suspension of 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for another year, citing “serious concerns about Judge Newman’s cognitive state” and her refusal to comply with the ongoing fitness investigation;
• a blog post highlighting the possible impact of the bipartisan Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, introduced in Congress this term, on U.S. patent law; and
• an article discussing the evolving nature of standing in patent infringement cases in light of a recent Federal Court decision.

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

• a blog post about “requirements for transparency regarding litigation funding and company and/or patent ownership” in the District of Delaware;
• an article about overcoming dismissals under Section 101 of the Patent Act; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s decision “reject[ing] a tech company’s bid to transfer a patent case it is facing out of . . . Waco.”

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 rejected a call to clarify the test for when an idea is too abstract to be eligible for a patent”;
• another article noting “the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)[‘s] . . . campaign against Senator Thom Tillis’ (R-NC) proposed ‘Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022;’” and
• a blog post highlighting how the Federal Circuit rescinded its “order relating to the unsealing of materials filed in cases docketed ten or more years ago.”

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, “[o]nce thought to be a toss-up, the Federal Circuit is now ruling for appellees nearly twice as often as appellants”;
• another article addressing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “shows [a] less rigid analysis” of corroboration of inventorship; and
• a third article highlighting several pending Supreme Court petitions in patent cases, including more than one that “raise important questions on Section 101 patent eligibility jurisprudence.”

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

• an article analyzing Judge Stark’s 2018 ruling as a district judge in an important patent eligibility case and how it might portend his analysis of patent eligibility as a judge on the Federal Circuit; and
• a blog post and an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently addressed estoppel as a result of inter partes review.

Guest Post by Greg Reilly

For over a decade, patent litigation has been surprisingly concentrated in a single federal district court. At one time, almost half of the nation’s patent litigation occurred in small towns in eastern Texas.1 Now, 20% of patent litigation occurs before a single judge based in Waco, Texas.2 This concentration of patent litigation is not the result of the inherent characteristics of these districts but instead of the affirmative efforts of particular judges to attract patent cases to their courthouses.3 Scholarly commentary of this forum selling and patent litigation concentration, including by myself, has been largely critical.4 The primary objection is that the districts and judges competing for patent litigation improperly skew procedures in favor of the patentees who make the forum choice.5

Guest Post by Tejas N. Narechania*

The Supreme Court’s decision in Arthrex is the latest in a growing set of decisions regarding administrative patent law. A close look at this entire series suggests that Arthrex is a culmination of a subtle shift in the Court’s approach to such cases. Where the Court once lauded the Patent Office’s expertise, the Court’s more recent decisions have emphasized flexibility and political accountability in patent decision-making. This development is both significant and salutary. For one, it marks the ongoing maturation of administrative patent law as one branch of administrative law, subject to the influences of the myriad administrative law values beyond expertise. This shift, moreover, is constructive, subjecting innovation- and access-governing principles to more democratic constraints.

Today we highlight four recent papers related to the Federal Circuit. The first, co-authored by retired Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel, focuses on the transformation of the U.S. patent system over the past fifteen years. The second analyzes the justiciability of litigation upon the invalidation of patents. The third reviews the Federal Circuit’s patent eligibility decisions in the seven years following the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank. The fourth examines the availability of Federal Circuit decisions. Here are more details on these papers.