Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing how Judge Albright “said the Federal Circuit’s rulings had ‘muddled what facts are relevant’ in determining which court can hear the case faster”;
- a blog post addressing the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that “[a] design [patent] claim is limited to the article of manufacture identified in the claim”;
- another article detailing how in an opposition to a trademark “an opposer cannot show standing by merely showing the registrant competes with the opposer and receives a benefit from an unlawful trademark”; and
- another post explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit brought some measure of clarity to the question [of proper venue] recently when it affirmed a District Court dismissal of an ANDA action on improper venue grounds.”
Blake Brittain authored an article for Reuters discussing how “U.S. District Judge Alan Albright cited decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversing his rulings in similar cases, but said some of those reversals were ‘out of step’ with years of precedent.” Brittain highlighted that “Albright also said the Federal Circuit’s rulings had ‘muddled what facts are relevant’ in determining which court can hear the case faster.”
Kelly S. Horn published a blog post for Finnegan IP Blog explaining how, in In re SurgiSil, L.L.P., “the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s decision affirming an examiner’s rejection of Surgisil’s design patent application.” Horn emphasized the court’s reasoning in holding “that ‘[a] design claim is limited to the article of manufacture identified in the claim.'”
Murr filed an article with IPWatchdog discussing how, in Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC, the Federal Circuit “affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) cancellation of Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC’s (BBS) standard character mark and dismissed in part, affirmed in part and remanded the TTAB’s decision regarding the opposition of BBS’s mark.” Murr noted that the Federal Circuit stated that “an opposer cannot show standing by merely showing the registrant competes with the opposer and receives a benefit from an unlawful trademark.”
Kevin E. Noonan wrote a post for Patent Docs highlighting how, in Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., “[t]he Federal Circuit brought some measure of clarity to the question [of proper venue] recently when it affirmed a District Court dismissal of an ANDA action on improper venue grounds.” Noonan noted that “the decision is a significant advance in certainty regarding the requirements for establishing venue.”