Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights comments on an oral argument held last week in a patent case, a note on a recent Federal Circuit decision that Federal Reserve Banks may challenge patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an article about another recent Federal Circuit decision involving multi-color trademarks, and a comment on yet another recent decision by the Federal Circuit in an ongoing patent dispute involving medical devices.
Scott Graham filed an article with Law.com commenting on arguments heard by the Federal Circuit on Friday in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc. As explained by Graham, “[t]wo of the three judges . . . sounded skeptical of [the appellant’s] arguments that 10x Genomics Inc.’s ground-breaking single-cell technology doesn’t infringe three Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. patents, or that a Delaware jury’s award of $24 million and a 15% royalty were beyond the pale.” Graham notes, however, that “[a]ll three of the judges sounded skittish about maintaining the injunction Bio-Rad won in district court, even though 10x has since designed around parts of it.” (We previously provided an argument preview for this case. Later this week we will provide our argument recap.)
Dani Kass reported for Law 360 that “[t]he Federal Circuit on Friday cleared Federal Reserve banks to challenge patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, saying they’re distinct enough from government entities.” According to Kass, in Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank, “[t]he Federal Circuit said the banks are separate from the government, unlike the U.S. Postal Service in the Return Mail decision, because they aren’t established as an executive agency.” (We previously reported on this decision.)
The Fashion Law highlighted the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in In re Forney Industries, Inc. as “holding that ‘a distinct color-based product packaging mark can indicate the source of the goods to a consumer, and, therefore, can be inherently distinctive.'” The article includes comments by Christine Farley, a law professor at American University Washington College of Law, on the significance of the decision.
Nick Paul Taylor of MedTech Dive commented on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., explaining that “the Federal Circuit has sided with Nevro, a California medical device company focused on chronic pain treatments, in the latest round of its multi-front patent dispute with Boston Scientific.” As explained in the article, the Federal Circuit held that “a lower court erred in invalidating four Nevro patents covering high-frequency spinal cord stimulation.” According to Taylor, however, “issues remain unresolved in the legal dispute between the companies,” and “[t]wo cases brought by Boston Scientific, including one that alleges theft of trade secrets, are still making their way through the courts.”