Source: http://www.717madisonplace.com/?m=201202
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:50:55+00:00

Document:
The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for Federal Circuit nominee Richard G. Taranto. The hearing is scheduled for February 29, 2012 at 2:30 ET in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The member of the Senate Judiciary Committee presiding over the hearing will be . . . Al Franken.
Mr. Taranto is a nominee for the only open seat on the Federal Circuit.
You can watch the hearing [here].
Usually Senator Grassley asks nominees what the Federal Circuit meant by the “irrefragable proof” standard in its 1999 decision Lachance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378 (1999). Maybe he’ll switch it up this time and ask Mr. Taranto for a definition of an “abstract idea.” Another good question might be whether Mr. Taranto believes that a judge has a duty to actually apply Research Corporation Technologies v. Microsoft, 627 F.3d 859 (2010), even if he/she doesn’t like it.
It is too bad that more applicants don’t appeal decisions by the BPAI and TTAB. Since 1997, the judges of the Federal Circuit have decided, on average, 50 such appeals per year. Roughly 11.8 percent of the appeals from the USPTO (i.e., BPAI and TTAB) that were decided by the Federal Circuit have been reversed. The above chart shows the yearly statistics. (Click on the chart for a higher quality image.) As you can see, in recent years the reversal rate by the Federal Circuit has been above the historical average.
It seems logical that the USPTO’s efforts to to reduce its backlog of patent appeals will result in more appeals being made to the Federal Circuit. Whether such an increase in workload for the Federal Circuit will drive a need for an additional seat on the bench remains to be seen.
The statistics are available on the Federal Circuit web site.
I could easily be wrong about this; but, it looks like the court will soon hear its first oral argument concerning Facebook. The appeal is Leader Tech v. Facebook and the oral argument is scheduled for March 5th.
The appeal briefs are available here: [Appellant’s Brief], [Appellee’s Brief], and [Appellant’s Reply Brief].
I mentioned in an earlier post that I’m part of the planning committee for the AIPLA Electronic and Computer Patent Law Summit that is being held in San Diego on April 2, 2012. The program is shaping up nicely and registration should be open soon. I’ll post a registration link once it is available; but, in the meantime, here is a look at the schedule. As you can see, we’ve got a great group of speakers lined up for you. If you have never seen Ted Sichelman talk about his research on high tech startups and the patent system, I can recommend it highly. Also, we’re fortunate to have the General Counsel of Qualcomm, Donald Rosenberg, as the luncheon speaker this year — so that should be quite interesting. Actually, in my unbiased opinion, all the talks look interesting. So, hopefully we’ll see you in San Diego!
The AIPLA Electronic & Computer Patent Law Summit will be a fast-paced, multi-session seminar covering timely, advanced, and emerging issues including standards, strategic patent portfolio development, and patent litigation trends. Hear from leading practitioners on the latest changes in law and practice that most directly affect their law practices.
Registration information will be on the AIPLA website shortly.
We are an approved provider by most states requiring CLE and have applied for credit for this meeting to all states requiring CLE. The number of credit hours will vary depending on the requirements of the individual state. For 50-minute states, up to 9.6 CLE credit hours are available. Certificates of Attendance, Attendance Sign-in Rosters and all other CLE information for various states will be available at the Registration Desk.
Judge Moore would remark that she probably shouldn’t say that the PTO did a sloppy job and that she appreciates that the PTO is stressed and trying to incorporate new appellate judges. However, my take is that if the PTO is not put on notice when it is doing a sloppy job, it can’t improve itself. So, hats off to Judge Moore for calling it as she sees it.
The panel issued a Rule 36 opinion, presumably finding that the deferential standard that must be applied to Board decisions required an affirmance.
The PTO has posted the initial schedule for the first public hearing on genetic diagnostic testing patents. Note that there is time allotted for those who did not pre-schedule their testimony, in case you missed the deadline.
Thomas Kowalski, Shareholder, Vedder Price, P.C.
The oral argument in HTC Corp. v. IPCom, App. No. 2011-1004 (Fed. Cir. 2012) is an interesting oral argument that focuses on claim construction issues. The case is also a good example of how the word “that” can be dangerous in drafting claims.
The court concluded that the word “that” referred back to the word network and that the six functions in paragraphs 2-7 merely define the environment in which the mobile station operates.
As you can see, the newly construed claim is a single means plus function claim. (And, if you had any doubt, the opinion notes that the parties agreed that the claim element is a means plus function element.) Section 112, paragraph 6 permits combination claims to use means plus function language; but, the court recognized in In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712 (Fed. Cir. 1983) that single means claims are invalid under section 112, paragraph 6.
With the flurry of activity surrounding the implementation of the AIA, it is easy to miss some of the announcements about public hearings and the opportunity for public comment. One of my biotech colleagues pointed out to me that TODAY is the deadline to register to present oral testimony concerning the PTO’s required study of genetic diagnostic testing.
To register to present oral testimony at either the hearing in Washington, D.C. on February 16, 2012 or in San Diego on March 9, 2012, my understanding is that one should email the following information to Saurabh Vishnubhakat at saurabh.vishnubhakat@uspto.gov: (1) The name of the person wishing to testify; (2) the person’s contact information (telephone number and email address); (3) the organization(s) the person represents, if any; (4) an indication of the amount of time needed for the testimony; and (5) a preliminary written copy of the testimony. The PTO noted that the public hearings would be made available via a webcast.
For more information on the hearings and the PTO press release see this link on the PatentDocs blog.
The Federal Circuit’s newest member, Circuit Judge Evan Wallach, took part in his first oral argument as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today. Chief Judge Rader was the presiding judge on the panel and welcomed Judge Wallach. Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern District of California and the new Director of the Federal Judicial Center is sitting by designation with the Federal Circuit this month; and, Chief Judge Rader offered kind remarks towards Judge Fogel, as well: [Listen].
My understanding is that Judge Wallach did not take part in the en banc oral arguments of Akamai v. Limelight and McKesson v. Epic which were argued shortly after his swearing-in in November — however, he is entitled to serve on the en banc panels that will decide those cases. Decisions in those cases are forthcoming.
You are currently browsing the 717 Madison Place blog archives for February, 2012.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.