News
on

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 “Zaxcom has petitioned the court for rehearing en banc, arguing that the CAFC’s precedent . . . ‘confused the law’ regarding a rebuttable presumption of nexus”;
  • another article discussing how “[a] split US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that US chemical company BASF is able to be sued” for alleged infringement; and
  • a blog post discussing how, “[i]n a new petition for writ of certiorari, Cisco asks for guidance on whether enhanced damages under Section 284 require ‘egregious infringement behavior’ or instead is it enough to find ‘deliberate or intentional infringement.'”

Eileen McDermott filed an article with IPWatchdog explaining how, in Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc., “the Federal Circuit (CAFC) agreed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision that [certain patent claims] were unpatentable as obvious, but upheld . . . substitute claims Zaxcom had proposed.” McDermott went on to highlight that, “[n]ow, Zaxcom has petitioned the court for rehearing en banc, arguing that the CAFC’s precedent . . . ‘confused the law’ regarding a rebuttable presumption of nexus.”

Alex Baldwin wrote an article for World IP Review discussing how, in BASF Plant Science, LP v. Commonwealth Scientific, “[a] split US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that US chemical company BASF is able to be sued for infringing an Australian government agency’s patents related to fish food.”

Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO discussing how, “[i]n a new petition for writ of certiorari, Cisco asks for guidance on whether enhanced damages under Section 284 require ‘egregious infringement behavior’ or instead is it enough to find ‘deliberate or intentional infringement?'” Crouch discussed the “basics,” noting that “[t]he starting point for enhanced damages should begin with the statutory text found in 35 U.S.C. § 284.”