Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article reporting how the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “did not improperly place the burden of persuasion for proving unpatentability of proposed substitute claims . . . on [the patent owner].”
- another article highlighting an upcoming Federal Circuit argument concerning constitutional standing; and
- a blog post discussing “the scope of ‘comparison prior art’ available for the ordinary observer infringement analysis” in design patent cases.
Matthew Schutte authored an article for IPWatchdog reporting how the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “did not improperly place the burden of persuasion for proving unpatentability of proposed substitute claims . . . on [the patent owner].” Schutte reported the Federal Circuit also found “substantial evidence support[ing] the PTAB’s obviousness analysis.” Schutte wrote “[t]he decision comes after two prior rulings by the CAFC in related cases between Nike and Adidas.”
Andrew Karpan highlighted for Law 360 an upcoming Federal Circuit argument concerning constitutional standing. Karpan explained how Uniloc claims “a deal . . . cut with a litigation funder did not undercut its legal standing to assert a vast trove of patents.” Karpan discussed how the issue of constitutional standing is “considered to be murky in patent law” and how other companies have asked for “new law on the issue of standing” in light of “‘district courts . . . applying vastly different rules.'” For more information about this case, see our argument preview.
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for PatentlyO discussing “the scope of ‘comparison prior art’ available for the ordinary observer infringement analysis” in design patent cases. Crouch claimed “the Federal Circuit has placed renewed importance on the claimed ‘article of manufacture,’ but not in the comparison portion of infringement analysis.”