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 recently the “Federal Circuit underscore[d] [the] importance of [patent law’s] written description requirement”;
- another article explaining how the Federal Circuit “threw out a jury verdict ordering Apple Inc and Broadcom Inc to pay $1.1 billion to the California Institute of Technology” in a patent case;
- another another article assessing how the Federal Circuit “upheld a Michigan judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction” in a patent case; and
- another article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “improperly relied on applicant admitted prior art” in an inter partes review proceeding.
Law.com published an article discussing how, in Biogen International GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the “Federal Circuit underscore[d] [the] importance of [the] written description requirement.” Law.com noted how “[t]he decision highlights the importance of considering invalidity under the written description requirement as a potential defense in litigation–particularly in ANDA cases, in which therapeutic efficacy for specific conditions, and drugs dosage amounts, may be at issue–and for patent applicants to remain mindful of written description pitfalls throughout patent prosecution.”
Blake Brittain and Jonathan Stempel co-authored an article for Reuters explaining how the Federal Circuit “threw out a jury verdict ordering Apple Inc and Broadcom Inc to pay $1.1 billion to the California Institute of Technology for infringing its Wi-Fi technology patents, and ordered a new trial on damages.” Brittain and Stempel noted how the Federal Circuit “said the January 2020 award by the federal jury in Los Angeles, one of the largest ever in patent cases, was ‘legally unsupportable.'”
Britain Eakin reported for IP Law360 on how, in BlephEx, LLC v. Myco Industries, Inc., the Federal Circuit “upheld a Michigan judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction to BlephEx LLC that barred its rival Myco Industries Inc. from selling an allegedly infringing device for treating an eye disease, saying Myco failed to show the asserted patent is likely invalid.”
Clyde Shuman filed an article with Lexology detailing how the Federal Circuit, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., “a precedential opinion, held that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) did not constitute ‘prior art consisting of patents or printed publications,’ as required in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).”