Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing Moderna’s claim “that Pfizer and BioNTech unlawfully copied Moderna’s inventions”;
- an article summarizing the Federal Circuit recent ruling “that ‘plain meaning’ [of patent claims] cannot be interpreted in a vacuum”; and
- a third article highlighting the Federal Circuit’s decision to allow Apple and several other tech companies to “continue to import and sell their smartphone devices.”
Christopher Rowland authored an article for the Washington Post discussing Moderna’s claim “that Pfizer and BioNTech unlawfully copied Moderna’s inventions.” Rowland explained that the patent at issue is the “foundational technology in developing [Moderna’s] coronavirus vaccine” but noted “Moderna said it is not seeking an injunction against Pfizer’s sale of its vaccine or its removal from the market.”
Matthew Siegal published an article with Law.com summarizing the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling “that ‘plain meaning’ [of patent claims] cannot be interpreted in a vacuum, especially when such plain meaning does not comport with the way a word was used in the specification and prosecution history.”
Samantha Handler wrote an article for Bloomberg Law highlighting the Federal Circuit’s decision to allow Apple and several other tech companies to “continue to import and sell their smartphone devices” after finding “they don’t infringe a pair of INVT SPE LLC patents.” Handler discussed how INVT “originally sought an import ban on iPhones and other smartphones that are manufactured overseas and sold in the US,” but ultimately “didn’t show enough evidence of infringement.”