Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing Judge Newman’s response to her suspension from serving on the bench, specifically that “she’s prepared to fight the decision for as long as it takes”;
- an article about the “oral arguments in . . . an appeal following the massive $2.175 billion damages verdict handed by a Western Texas jury in March 2021 to VLSI for Intel’s infringement of two computer processor patents”; and
- a blog post commenting on an opinion providing “useful guidance for [patent] prosecutors on motivation to combine and means-plus-function claims.”
Ryan Davis wrote an article for Law360 discussing Judge Newman’s response to her suspension from serving on the bench, specifically that “she’s prepared to fight the decision for as long as it takes.” According to Davis, Judge Newman “is preparing to appeal the suspension to the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, the nationwide panel of judges that reviews such cases, and to keep pursuing her district court lawsuit against the other Federal Circuit judges, which alleges that the investigation violates her constitutional rights.”
Steve Brachmann wrote an article for IP Watchdog about the “oral arguments in . . . an appeal following the massive $2.175 billion damages verdict handed by a Western Texas jury in March 2021 to VLSI for Intel’s infringement of two computer processor patents.” Brachmann noted how the “Federal Circuit judicial panel hearing the appeal drilled down on the sufficiency of VLSI’s expert testimony for establishing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, as well as damages calculations that arguably relied upon data from non-infringing features of the accused technology.”
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for PatentlyO commenting on “useful guidance for [patent] prosecutors on motivation to combine and means-plus-function claims” after the Federal Circuit’s decision in Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc.” According to Crouch, “courts should seek to simplify the rules and refocus on whether the specification provides sufficient information to allow a skilled artisan to understand the boundaries of the functional claim element.”