A recent petition to the U.S. Supreme Court urges the Justices to take up the question of whether Judge Pauline Newman’s effective removal from the court by her peers is constitutional and “whether such an act undermines the impartiality and integrity of patent appeals adjudication by depriving the patent owner of a fair hearing before a duly constituted appellate panel?”
The petition was filed on October 16 by Miller Mendel, Inc., which lost its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) this July. In that case, the CAFC affirmed the Eastern District of Texas district court’s decision for the City of Anna, Texas (“the City”), that claims for a software system that manages pre-employment background investigations were patent ineligible. The decision was precedential and authored by Judge Cunningham. The petition was filed on October 16 by Miller Mendel, Inc., which lost its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) this July. In that case, the CAFC affirmed the Eastern District of Texas district court’s decision for the City of Anna, Texas (“the City”), that claims for a software system that manages pre-employment background investigations were patent ineligible. The decision was precedential and authored by Judge Cunningham.
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, February 14: EU Commission Scraps SEP Draft Regulations; Senate Commerce to Explore Spectrum Auction Delays; House Science Seeks Review of Commercial Space Licensing
- Vidal Amicus Asks CAFC to Correct ED of TX Jury Instructions on Eligibility
- Revised Fair Use Ruling Finds No Transformative Use in Developing AI Search Tool
- Patently Strategic Podcast: Dealing with Rejection
- IPWatchdog Unleashed: Patents and the Future of the USPTO in Trump’s Second Term