Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing the outcome of a patent case originating at the International Trade Commission;
- a post discussing how the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that claims did not meet the requirement of eligibility; and
- an article discussing how the Federal Circuit found that UGG AUSTRALIA was a valid trademark and not generic; and
- another article discussing how two recent Federal Circuit decisions may be “welcome news for federal employees at all agencies.”
Adam Lidgett reported for Law360 on how “[t]he Federal Circuit on Friday upheld the U.S. International Trade Commission’s finding that a pair of bacteria strains used by German-based Jennewein infringed a Glycosyn milk patent.” Lidgett stated that “[a] three-judge appellate panel rejected challenges from Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH, which is now part of Chr. Hansen Holding, against the ITC’s claim construction and its finding that the strains infringed.”
Anthony J. Fuga with Holland & Knight posted about how, “[i]n the case of In re Elbaum . . . [t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found Elbaum’s claims to be patent ineligible under [35 U.S.C.] Section 101, and Elbaum appealed.” Fuga highlighted that “the Federal Circuit, in a short opinion, agreed with the PTAB’s analysis,” namely that “[a]t Alice step two, the Federal Circuit found nothing in the claim that could be considered an inventive concept.”
Jeanne Hamburg filed an article with The National Law Review on “the UGG AUSTRALIA litigation,” explaining that, “[a]fter a five-year battle, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found that UGG AUSTRALIA was a valid trademark, not generic.” Hamburg focused on the parties’ arguments regarding “whether ‘ugg’ is a ‘generic’ name — that is, the name of a product category (a type of shearling lined boot) — or whether it is a brand name that U.S. customers recognize as coming from a single source (Deckers).”
Louise Ryder and Debra D’Agostino authored an article for FedSmith.com noting that, “[w]ith two precedential decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gutted parts of the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, 38 U.S.C. § 714, which had been used to severely curtail the rights of VA employees.” Ryder and D’Agostino emphasized that “the Federal Circuit’s decisions should be welcome news for federal employees at all agencies.”