Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article detailing how “[a] South Korean nutritional supplement company correctly lost its BF-7 trademark registration”;
- another article explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit has refused to revive Polycom Inc.’s attempt to undo part of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision”;
- a blog post assessing how “‘[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction'”; and
- yet another article discussing how the Federal Circuit has recently provided “an important new data point in the evolving timeliness rules for bid protests filed with the Court of Federal Claims.”
Kyle Jahner reported for Bloomberg Law regarding how, in Sunbio Corp. v. Biogrand Co., “[a] South Korean nutritional supplement company correctly lost its BF-7 trademark registration because it falsely claimed it had rights to the mark at the time it applied for it.” Jahner noted that the Federal Circuit stated that the “Korean company didn’t [the] own mark when it applied.”
Adam Lidgett published an article for Law360 discussing how, in Polycom, Inc. v. DirectPacket Research, Inc., “[t]he Federal Circuit has refused to revive Polycom Inc.’s attempt to undo part of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision upholding a half dozen claims in a firewall-traversing communications patent.” Lidgett highlighted that “[a] three-judge panel affirmed Monday a portion of a PTAB decision backing six claims in a directPacket Research Inc. patent that was challenged by Polycom.”
Dennis Crouch authored a post for PatentlyO expanding on how, as expressed in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., “‘[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.'” Crouch concluded that, “[i]n general, if the PTAB quotes Ameranth, it finds the claims abstract” given that, “[o]ut of 100 recent PTAB eligibility decisions quoting Ameranth, only 1 sided with the applicant on eligibility grounds.”
James Tucker filed an article with JD Supra explaining that the Federal Circuit’s decision in Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States “is an important new data point in the evolving timeliness rules for bid protests filed with the Court of Federal Claims.” Tucker emphasized that “the decision opens the door to greater procurement delays, will require the Court of Federal Claims to consider the merits of pre-award protest grounds that otherwise might have been summarily dismissed, and may result in more agency-level protests to preserve solicitation challenges for potential use in post-award protests.”