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 Supreme Court’s denial of a petition “to review a February ruling . . . that held claims of ChromaDex, Inc.’s patent on an isolated form of vitamin B3 are directed to unpatentable subject matter under Section 101”;
- an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “vacated a $4.6 million award for lost profits” in a patent case; and
- an article highlighting a recent “fight over words” at the Federal Circuit in another patent case.
Eileen McDermott wrote an article for IPWatchdog about the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition “to review a February ruling . . . that held claims of ChromaDex, Inc.’s patent on an isolated form of vitamin B3 are directed to unpatentable subject matter under Section 101.” As explained by McDermott, the Federal Circuit held that the relevant claims “were invalid under Section 101 as being directed to natural phenomenon.” For more information on this case, check out our case page.
Lauren Castle authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing how the Federal Circuit “vacated a $4.6 million award for lost profits” in Cyntec Company v. Chilisin Electronics. Castle discussed how the court “affirmed a California jury’s verdict that Chilisin Electronics Corp. infringed two Cyntec Company Ltd. patents dealing with the manufacturing of inductors even as it threw out a $4.6 million award for profits lost to the infringement.”
Andrew Karpan wrote an article for Law360 highlighting a recent “fight over words” at the Federal Circuit in Dali Wireless Inc. v. CommScope Technologies LLC. As explained by Karpan, a “trio of Federal Circuit judges agreed Wednesday with a Delaware federal judge’s definitions for ‘packetizing’ and ‘routing and switching,’ ending a patent fight between two feuding wireless telecom companies.”