Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about a petition for certiorari regarding a Federal Circuit decision addressing patent infringement and “skinny labels” on generic medications;
- another article about “[t]he Federal Circuit reviv[ing] patent licensing company Uniloc’s cases against Google”; and
- a third article about a Federal Circuit oral argument concerning “a Google patent application for parental control content filters.”
Fraiser Kansteiner wrote an article for Fierce Pharma about a petition for certiorari regarding the Federal Circuit’s decision in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. addressing patent infringement and “skinny labels” on generic medications. Kansteiner reported how the Federal Circuit’s “decision upholding GSK’s $235 million win” is now being challenged by Teva, who asserts “that generic medicines launch with skinny labels ‘almost half the time.’” Kansteiner explained that “[a] decision favoring GSK would force generics companies to exercise extreme caution when using skinny labels going forward.”
Andrew Karpan authored an article for Law360 about “[t]he Federal Circuit reviv[ing] patent licensing company Uniloc’s cases against Google.” Karpan reported how the Federal Circuit’s decision was “good news and bad news for Uniloc,” with the rulings allowing its claims Google to go forward, but not its claims against Motorola or Blackboard.
Kelcee Griffis published an article for Bloomberg Law about a Federal Circuit oral argument addressing “a Google patent application for parental control content filters.” Griffis summarized that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had previously decided “to combine two pieces of prior art that it then used to reject Google’s designs.” Griffis reported that the government was heavily questioned by Chief Judge Moore, who “said she saw a ‘fundamental disconnect’ between the patent examiner’s combination of the references that led to the rejection and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s reasoning in upholding the rejection.”