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 “the Federal Circuit has made a rare criticism of a precedential opinion panel (POP) decision” issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
- another article providing insight into how “some sizable jury awards from last year are now providing the Federal Circuit an opportunity to clarify important points of damages law”; and
- a third article detailing how the Federal Circuit recently overruled a lower court decision that parts of three patents were invalid for indefiniteness.
Alex Baldwin authored an article for World IP Review discussing how, in Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics, “the Federal Circuit has made a rare criticism of a precedential opinion panel (POP) decision, as it upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling in favour of oil drilling tech company DynaEnergetics.”
Law.com published an article authored by Matthias Kamber and Chad Peterman providing insight into how, “[o]wing to the dearth of patent trials during the pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has had relatively few opportunities to address damages issues over the past year.” The authors, however, go on to say that “some sizable jury awards from last year are now providing the Federal Circuit an opportunity to clarify important points of damages law.”
Matthew Bultman filed an article with Bloomberg Law detailing how “VDPP LLC convinced the Federal Circuit a lower court improperly invalidated parts of three optical illusion patents the company allege[d] [were] infringed by Vizio Inc. televisions.” Bultman noted that the”Federal Circuit said [the] patent claims [were] not indefinite.”