Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s “‘most restrictive patent eligibility decision yet'”;
- another article examining “the most notable trademark decisions so far this year”; and
- a third article addressing how the Federal Circuit recently found that “substantial evidence supported [a] district court’s finding of anticipation” in a patent case.
Scott Graham wrote an article for Law.com discussing how, in CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., the Federal Circuit “held patents on a noninvasive test for detecting organ transplant rejection ineligible for patent protection.” Graham noted how this decision “is the latest instance of medical diagnostic patents being rejected on eligibility grounds.” According to Graham, this decision “will probably result in yet another push for review of the Alice/Mayo eligibility test by the U.S. Supreme Court.” As the article notes, Edward Reines, an attorney for CareDx, “called the Federal Circuit’s Monday decision ‘the most restrictive patent eligibility decision yet, which will further suffocate innovation in the life-saving arts.'”
Tiffany Hu published an article for Law360 examining the biggest trademark rulings so far this year, including two Federal Circuit decisions. Hu noted how, in In re Elster, the Federal Circuit overturned “the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of a trademark application on the phrase ‘Trump Too Small.'” In addition, Hu highlighted how, in Meenaxi v. Coca-Cola, “the Federal Circuit held that Coca-Cola failed to show reputational injury to justify canceling a smaller rival’s trademarks on the same names of popular Coke sodas sold in India.”
Eileen McDermott authored an article for IPWatchdog addressing how, in Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., the Federal Circuit “affirmed a district court’s ruling denying Innovation Sciences’ post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that claims of three of its patents are not invalid and that Amazon.com, Inc. infringed them.” McDermott noted how the Federal Circuit “explained that when a jury returns a verdict based on ‘multiple independent factual bases . . . a lack of substantial evidence for some of those bases does not warrant JMOL.'”