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 bid by Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Corp and others to revive their challenge to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy that made it harder to contest the validity of patents issued by the agency”;
- another article about the Federal Circuit’s skepticism about “allegations that [Facebook’s] news feed infringed on Usability Sciences’ 2014 patent”; and
- a blog post about the Federal Circuit denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Amazon.com, Inc.
Blake Brittain wrote an article for Reuters about “a bid by Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Corp and others to revive their challenge to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy that made it harder to contest the validity of patents issued by the agency.” Brittain explained how “the case, which was brought by Apple, Google, Intel, Cisco, and Edwards Lifesciences,” concerns “a PTO rule governing the power of administrative judges to reject patent challenges.”
Kelly Lienhard authored an article describing the Federal Circuit’s “skepticism” at oral argument about “allegations that [Facebook’s] news feed infringed on Usability Sciences’ 2014 patent covering a way to use ‘historical intent data’ to ‘predict and suggest’ other webpages.” Lienhard summarized how “Usability Sciences’ counsel argued that the intent engine . . . is a new component that did not previously exist and changed the way the internet could be navigated.” Lienhard noted, however, that the Federal Circuit judges pushed back on this claim.
Eileen McDermott wrote an article for IPWatchdog about the Federal Circuit denying “a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Amazon.com, Inc. asking the court to vacate an Order by Judge Alan Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.” McDermott reported how Judge Albright denied Amazon’s request for a transfer to the Northern District of California, finding “the ‘sources of proof’ factor relevant to the transfer analysis weighed in favor of neither forum.” McDermott explained, moreover, how “the district court further found that it could hold trial sooner than the transferee court and that ‘on balance . . . Amazon had failed to show the transferee venue was clearly more convenient.’”