Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post discussing the exclusion of expert testimony related to patent damages;
- an article indicating that recent Federal Circuit opinions have created “a blueprint for companies that want to get cases moved out of the nation’s fledgling patent-dispute hotbed”; and
- a report on the outcome of one of Apple’s challenges to patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Thomas F. Cotter authored a post for Comparative Patent Remedies commenting on Omega Patents LLC v. Calamp Corp. Cotter “focus[ed] on the damages issues on appeal” and “the relevant legal principles.” More specifically, Cotter discussed the Federal Circuit’s approach towards “excluding the defendant’s expert,” the majority’s conclusion “that the damages award ‘does not reflect apportionment’ or show that the patented feature drove demand,” and the majority’s rejection of “the comparable licenses theory.”
Matthew Bultman published an article on Bloomberg Law discussing how the Federal Circuit “has taken notice and entertained requests that it order a transfer out of Waco in ways not typically seen.” Bultman highlighted that “[a] trail of unhappy defendants from Waco, Texas, to the patent appeals court in Washington is starting to build a blueprint for companies that want to get cases moved out of the nation’s fledgling patent-dispute hotbed.”
Blake Brittain reported for Reuters on a recent Federal Circuit decision reviewing “Apple Inc’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board win invalidating parts of a fingerprint-authentication patent.” Brittain noted that the court upheld “two other Firstface patents that Apple had challenged.” Brittain explained that the “three-judge panel reject[ed] Apple’s claims that the two valid patents were obvious based on earlier disclosures, but agree[d] with Apple that a third patent was obvious.”