Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about how the “Federal Circuit . . . backed a pair of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions that said Netflix failed to prove that two streaming patents were invalid”; and
- an article discussing how “Google waived its right to respond to a petition for writ of certiorari . . . filed by the inventors of a method for protecting computers from malware.”
Adam Lidgett wrote an article for Law360 about how the “Federal Circuit . . . backed a pair of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions that said Netflix failed to prove that two streaming patents were invalid.” As explained by Lidgett, “Judge Timothy B. Dyk dissented, saying ‘the board improperly ignored arguments that Netflix raised in its petition.'” To read the opinion, see our opinion page.
Eileen McDermott authored an article for IP Watchdog discussing how “Google waived its right to respond to a petition for writ of certiorari . . . filed by the inventors of a method for protecting computers from malware.” McDermott notes how the “inventors . . . are [challenging] a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision that reversed a district court ruling and $20 million verdict for the inventors.” For more information, see our Supreme Court petition case page.