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 Federal Circuit decision “that affirmed the right of patent owners to make good faith allegations of patent infringement under the U.S. First Amendment”;
- another article about a ban on “imports of SharkNinja Operating LLC robot vacuums that infringe a patent owned by Roomba maker iRobot Corp”; and
- a third article discussing “three high-profile intellectual property cases” that “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh.”
Frank West wrote an article for IAM about a Federal Circuit decision “that affirmed the right of patent owners to make good faith allegations of patent infringement under the U.S. First Amendment without incurring liability for state law business tort claims.” West explained how in the district court case, Holiday Bright Lights “Lite-Netics sued HBL for patent infringement,” which later resulted in HBL “assert[ing] multiple state law business tort counterclaims” due to Lite-Netics’s “customer communications.” West stated that the “district court granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, finding that the infringement allegations were so meritless as to be in bad faith.” West reported how at the Federal Circuit, in Lite-Netics v Nu Tsai Capital, “the Federal Circuit stated that the ruling could only stand if the communications were in bad faith” and, further, “[i]njunctions against the First Amendment right to freedom of speech should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.”
Blake Brittain authored an article for Reuters about a ban on “imports of SharkNinja Operating LLC robot vacuums that infringe a patent owned by Roomba maker iRobot Corp.” Brittain explained how there is a sixty-day review period in which the President of the United States can reverse the import ban, and that SharkNinja can also “appeal [International Trade Commission] decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the [sixty-day] review period ends.” Brittain reported, however, how an attorney for SharkNinja “said the remaining patent at issue only related to a feature of one device that the company had already removed, and that the order will have ‘zero impact’ on SharkNinja’s ability to sell its products.”
Kelcee Griffis and Kyle Jahner wrote an article for Bloomberg Law discussing “three high-profile intellectual property cases” that “[t]he US Supreme Court is set to weigh.” Griffis and Jahner explained how “[t]he arguments could result in rulings with wide-ranging impacts on areas including First Amendment expression, pharmaceutical research and development, and damages calculations.” Griffis and Kahler also reported that “[t]he U.S. solicitor general will argue in all three cases, signaling the government’s strong interest in their outcomes.”