Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about the U.S. International Trade Commission finding “Apple Watches with an electrocardiogram (ECG) function infringe patents belonging to medical device maker AliveCor Inc”;
- another article about Amgen Inc.’s arguments to the Supreme Court that “patents needn’t spell out every possible iteration of an invention in order to be eligible for protection”;
- a third article about “VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corp . . . agree[ing] to end a patent dispute in Delaware”; and
- a fourth article about “[t]he Federal Circuit . . . order[ing] a California company to defend patent litigation it filed in Texas, as its competitor in optical filters is asking to have the case transferred.”
Blake Brittain wrote an article for Reuters about the U.S. International Trade Commission finding “Apple Watches with an electrocardiogram (ECG) function infringe patents belonging to medical device maker AliveCor Inc.” Brittain notes, however, that the ITC “would not enforce a ban [on importation] until appeals were finished in a separate dispute before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.” Brittain reported that the U.S. Patent and Trademark office “found AliveCor’s patents invalid earlier this month.”
Kelcee Griffis authored an article for Bloomberg Law about Amgen Inc.’s arguments to the Supreme Court that “patents needn’t spell out every possible iteration of an invention in order to be eligible for protection.” Griffis reported that this case, Amgen Inc. vs. Sanofi, “gives the justices a chance to define the scope of a requirement that patents must contain enough information to enable someone with expertise in the field to make and use the invention.”
Blake Brittain wrote an article for Reuters about “VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corp . . . agree[ing] to end a patent dispute in Delaware.” Brittain explained that “VLSI . . . has brought several infringement lawsuits against Intel, [and] has won more than $3 billion in jury verdicts from two other cases against the chipmaker in Texas.” Brittain also reported that “VLSI had agreed not to sue Intel’s suppliers or customers over the five patents at issue in the case, and that neither party was paying the other to end it.”
Dani Kass published an article for Law360 about “[t]he Federal Circuit . . . order[ing] a California company to defend patent litigation it filed in Texas, as its competitor in optical filters is asking to have the case transferred to the West Coast.” Kass explained that the defendant, the Chinese company Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd., attempted to have the case dismissed, “citing concerns over personal jurisdiction.” Kass summarized that, following the refusal to dismiss, Crystal “filed a mandamus petition urging the circuit court to step in and make Judge Gilstrap transfer the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California.” Kass explained how the Federal Circuit “directed Viavi Solutions Inc. to respond to Crystal’s claims that the judge made erroneous conclusions and abused his discretion when issuing his refusal.”