Source: http://www.717madisonplace.com/?m=201203
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:53:31+00:00

Document:
In the oral argument of In re LG Electronics, Inc., App. No. 2011-1248 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Associate Solicitor for the USPTO argued that a purportedly limiting statement in the specification of the Applicant’s patent under reexamination should not be considered a clear disavowal. One argument that the Associate Solicitor relied upon was that there could be no clear disavowal when the boilerplate of the same specification called for the claims not to be limited by the disclosed embodiments.
Well, that’s very interesting. We’ve seen that identical boilerplate in probably six or seven million patents. And, now you’re telling us that for the first time we should … apply it.
You can listen to Judge Newman’s remark here: [Listen].
You can review the Rule 36 opinion here: [Read].
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a voice vote on Thursday on the nomination of Federal Circuit nominee Richard Taranto. By voice vote, Mr. Taranto’s nomination was approved by the committee and will now proceed to the full Senate.
There was one “No” vote recorded on Mr. Taranto’s nomination by Senator Lee of Utah. As this article [Link] on the Blog of Legal Times explains, however, that “No” vote probably had more to do with recent recess appointments than Mr. Taranto’s qualifications. The article notes that Senator Lee plans to vote “No” on all of President Obama’s judicial nominees until the White House rescinds its recent recess appointments made during a two day legislative break in January.
The nomination of Richard Taranto to the Federal Circuit as well as the nominations of other judges were on the schedule of the Senate Judiciary Committee for March 22nd, 2012; but, discussion of those nominations had to be held over for a later date when not enough senators showed up for the meeting. Senator Leahy characterized the lack of attendance by Republican senators as a boycott. Ranking member Grassley was in attendance and stated that there was no reason that he knew of for a boycott and objected to characterizing the lack of attendance as a boycott.
There is some sense that judicial nominations are growing as a political issue in this election year. So, it will be interesting to see how Mr. Taranto’s nomination is affected in the upcoming months.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held an executive business meeting to consider pending nominations and legislation on March 22, 2012.
The oral argument in In re Ammar Al Ali, App. No. 2011-1086 (Fed. Cir. 2012) had a couple of interesting sound bites that I thought might be of interest.
In this first sound bite, Chief Judge Rader inquires how one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of the cited art — which sounded as though it was all unpublished patent applications filed around the same time at the Patent Office by third party inventors. [Listen].
In this second sound bite, Chief Judge Rader and the Associate Solicitor for the PTO disagree over whether the viewpoint of a third-party inventor in a prior application should be treated as the viewpoint of one of “super-skill” in the art and not as the viewpoint of one of “ordinary skill” in the art. [Listen].
The court issued a Rule 36 Affirmance of the PTO’s rejection of the claim(s) at issue.
Now that the Mayo Collaborative Services, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. ___ (2012) decision has issued, some folks might once again be interested in the oral argument. The oral argument is available on the OYEZ site [here].
The Senate Judiciary Committee has now posted on its website Federal Circuit nominee Richard G. Taranto’s answers to the committee’s written questions. Once again the committee asked no specific questions on patent law or intellectual property.
Question: Do you believe foreign nations have ideas and solutions to legal problems that could contribute to the proper interpretation of our laws?
Answer: The proper interpretation of our laws is that which gives effect to the ideas and solutions that our lawmakers enacted, not any ideas foreign nations have. Beyond that fundamental principle, there also are vital practical reasons for courts, in interpreting our laws, to resist looking at foreign ideas and solutions: inviting such inquiries can multiply costs, produce unreliable and inaccurate pictures of foreign systems that are not easily understood by outsiders, and harmfully divert attention from arrival at the proper domestic result, which is already a difficult enough task.
You can read all the questions and answers here: [Read].
I can remember way back when when I was an examiner, some of the toughest problems we faced were when we went out, we did comprehensive searches, and we found references that covered every element of the claim except one little thing. And, it was common practice back then, and I think you’re justifying the practice, that the examiners very frequently would say ‘Well the claim is rejected A in view of B and C — with respect to the last element, that’s a matter of mere design choice of no patentable consequence.’ It was a nice phrase. It had a nice ring to it. But I often wondered whether that was legitimate or not.
You know from your own experience whether this practice has changed since Judge Linn’s days as an examiner.
This case had a Rule 36 judgment. But, you can listen to the entire oral argument here: [Listen].
Oral Argument on Tribal Land?
The Federal Circuit will be coming to Colorado this fall to hear oral arguments as part of its mandate to periodically sit somewhere outside of Washington, D.C. A small percentage of the cases on the Federal Circuit’s docket each year are cases concerning federal claims by indian tribes. I’m intrigued with the idea that the Federal Circuit could conduct one of its sessions on tribal land. After 30 years of visiting constituencies in various states, it seems justifiable that at least one session of the court be held on tribal land. I’m not sure what kind of a turnout that session would get; but, I think it would be an historical opportunity for the court. (I don’t know whether any other federal court of appeals has ever heard oral argument on indian lands.) My understanding is that tribal lands are held in trust by the U.S. government on behalf of the respective indian tribes.
Federal Indian Law is an important component in the origin, history and specific jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and remains an important practice area in the Court, today. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has helped shape Federal Indian Law in many landmark or significant cases. In addition, the year 2006 marks the 60th year anniversary of the establishment of the Indian Claims Commission which, 30 years later, was abolished. Many remaining cases devolved to the docket of the United States Court of Federal Claims and were reviewed by the Federal Circuit. Among its goals, this Committee seeks collaboration with the Federal Circuit Historical Society, as well as other interested Committees, in examining the impact of the Indian Claims Commission and its ultimate assimilation into the Court of Claims. The opportunity to develop a special edition of the Federal Circuit Bar Journal on this topic is also a possibility as part of the activity surrounding this anniversary.
The regionals for the Giles S. Rich moot court competition will take place this coming weekend in Houston, Boston, Chicago, and Silicon Valley. If you are a student competing in the competition, you might want to watch some actual oral arguments before competing. The Ninth Circuit has posted videos of recent oral arguments to its web site. You can access them here: [Link].
Two of the nation’s more famous advocates appear in the following appellate arguments: [Ted Olson in Perry v. Hollingsworth] and [David Boies in Perry v. Brown]. Also, the Facebook v. Connectu oral argument featured Joshua Rosenkranz who has argued frequently before the Federal Circuit [Video].
It is interesting to note that while in private practice Federal Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk and Federal Circuit nominee Richard Taranto faced off at the Supreme Court in the case of Dewsnup v. Timm. The case concerned the bankruptcy code. Mr. Taranto’s client prevailed in that 1992 case.
You can listen to the oral argument of Dewsnup v. Timm at the Oyez site: [Listen].
You can read the opinion [here].
You are currently browsing the 717 Madison Place blog archives for March, 2012.

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