Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post discussing whether, in the context of the Patent Act, “obviousness is a straightforward inquiry”;
- an article assessing the Federal Circuit and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s approaches to patent subject matter eligibility;
- another blog post analyzing the primary takeaways from a recent Federal Circuit patent case addressing damages; and
- another article explaining how “AT&T Corp. survived a patent infringement claim . . . after the Federal Circuit found there wasn’t sufficient evidence that the telephone service provider’s remote terminals were in locations covered by the patents.”
Dennis Crouch published a blog post for PatentlyO discussing whether, in the context of the Patent Act, “obviousness is a straightforward inquiry.” Crouch noted that, “[i]n reality, the analysis is not easy or straightforward [as] . . . tribunals are often left guessing whether the invention went far enough—are the differences from the prior art meaningful in some way or are they merely points of distinction.”
Wen Xie authored an article for IPWatchdog assessing the Federal Circuit and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s approaches to patent subject matter eligibility. Xie explained that “[t]he Federal Circuit’s analysis of Section 101 is much closer to the well-understood, routine, conventional test of Alice.” By contrast, Xie noted, “[t]he USPTO . . . has tried to focus much more on practical application of a technical improvement.” Ultimately, Xie remarked, “[i]t is important to keep both of these approaches in mind when drafting your application.’
Thomas F. Cotter wrote a blog post for Comparative Patent Remedies analyzing the Federal Circuit’s analysis in Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. Ultimately, Cotter recognized, “the principal substantive principles coming out of this case are that (1) apportionment applies to method claims; and (2) patentees cannot recover damages for the infringement of method claims based on sales of devices that are only capable of infringing uses, without some basis for inferring how often the devices are used for these purposes.”
Samantha Handler filed an article with Bloomberg Law explaining how “AT&T Corp. survived a patent infringement claim from United Asset Technologies LLC after the Federal Circuit found there wasn’t sufficient evidence that the telephone service provider’s remote terminals were in locations covered by the patents.”