Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post assessing the Federal Circuit’s “reject[ion] [of the] argument that . . . PTAB Judges have an improper financial interest in instituting AIA proceedings”;
- an article discussing how General Motors, in a recent Federal Circuit decision, “beat back a challenge by computer-component maker Micro Mobio Corp” in a trademark dispute;
- another blog post providing an update on a case “in which the court concluded that the USPTO cannot recover expert witness fees in actions brought under 35 U.S.C. § 145”; and
- an article detailing how “Nokia Oyj, Sprint Corp., and Verizon Communications Inc. are cleared of allegations that their products infringe wireless network patents owned by Traxcell Technologies LLC.”
Dennis Crouch authored a post for Patently-O concerning Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, explaining how, “[i]n a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit has rejected Mobility’s argument that the PTAB Judges have an improper financial interest in instituting AIA proceedings.” Crouch proceeded to analyze the arguments presented, noting that the court “ultimately rejected them after concluding that any financial interest was too remote.”
Blake Brittain reported for Reuters on how, in Micro Mobio Corporation v. General Motors, LLC, “General Motors LLC on Tuesday beat back a challenge by computer-component maker Micro Mobio Corp to the ‘Super Cruise’ trademark GM uses for its semi-autonomous vehicle technology.” Brittain discussed how the Federal Circuit “found that the companies’ products differ enough that consumers aren’t likely to be confused by the nearly identical marks.”
Thomas F. Cotter posted an update on Comparative Patent Remedies regarding the modified opinion in Hyatt v. Hirshfeld. Cotter explained that the court’s opinion “does not alter the holding of the case, in which the court concluded that the USPTO cannot recover expert witness fees in actions brought under 35 U.S.C. § 145.”
Perry Cooper reported for Bloomberg Law on how, in Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks and Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company, “Nokia Oyj, Sprint Corp., and Verizon Communications Inc. are cleared of allegations that their products infringe wireless network patents owned by Traxcell Technologies LLC after the Federal Circuit affirmed two lower court rulings.” Cooper highlighted that “[t]he Federal Circuit applied the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer in [the] pair of precedential opinions.”