Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit is poised to provide guidance in the coming year on two patent law issues that have befuddled district courts”;
- another article detailing how “the Federal Circuit (CAFC) . . . affirmed a district court’s ruling that Novartis’ U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 is not invalid” over a dissent by Chief Judge Moore;
- an article detailing how the Federal Circuit “denied Cisco’s bid to rehear a panel decision reinstating a $57 million enhanced damages award against . . . SRI International Inc. over cybersecurity patents”; and
- another article noting that the Federal Circuit “was the first federal appeals court to announce a switch to remote oral arguments for its January session in response to the spike in COVID-19 cases.”
Perry Cooper filed an article with Bloomberg Law discussing how “[t]he Federal Circuit is poised to provide guidance in the coming year on two patent law issues that have befuddled district courts: written description and the scope of inter partes review estoppel.” Cooper noted that “new judge” “Stark is uniquely positioned to hit the ground running on these and other tricky patent law issues if he’s confirmed.”
Logan Murr authored a post for IPWatchdog explaining how, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc., “the Federal Circuit (CAFC) . . . affirmed a district court’s ruling that Novartis’ U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 is not invalid and that HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. and HEC Pharm USA Inc.’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) infringed the patent.” More specifically, Murr highlighted how “Chief Judge Moore dissented, arguing that the district court’s analysis was inconsistent with the CAFC’s established precedent.”
Britain Eakin published an article for Law360 assessing how, in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., the Federal Circuit “denied Cisco’s bid to rehear a panel decision reinstating a $57 million enhanced damages award against it in the networking giant’s eight-year saga with SRI International Inc. over cybersecurity patents.” Eakin explained that “[t]he Federal Circuit panel said Cisco willfully infringed because the defenses the company managed to present at trial were not reasonable.”
Avalon Zoppo wrote an article for Law.com providing an update on the Federal Circuit’s response to the recent surge in coronavirus cases, noting that “[t]he court was the first federal appeals court to announce a switch to remote oral arguments for its January session in response to the spike in COVID-19 cases.”