Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing different groups who “weighed in at the Federal Circuit on a legal campaign coming from a rival of General Motors that aims to change how courts make decisions about design patents”; and
- an article highlighting a Federal Circuit decision “regarding how Patent Term Adjustment interacts with terminal disclaimers and obviousness-type double patenting.”
Andrew Karpan wrote an article for Law360 discussing how different groups “weighed in at the Federal Circuit on a legal campaign coming from a rival of General Motors that aims to change how courts make decisions about design patents.” Karpan discusses how “[t]en amicus briefs were filed with the Federal Circuit on Monday” about the application of the Supreme Court’s decision KSR v. Teleflex to design patent non-obviousness law in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC. The amicus briefs were filed by various groups including “[l]awyers for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Taiwanese auto parts makers[,] and major insurance trade groups.” For our update on the same case, see this past Wednesday’s post.
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post on PatentlyO highlighting a recent Federal Circuit decision “regarding how Patent Term Adjustment interacts with terminal disclaimers and obviousness-type double patenting.” As explained by Crouch, In re Cellect LLC “establishes how PTA . . . should be factored into the ODP analysis — and the result does not favor patent families.” For more information, see our opinion summary.