Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing skepticism from Federal Circuit judges over “arguments that the former CEO of Trading Technologies International is entitled to nearly $1 billion damages because IBG LLC infringed the company’s dynamic trading display patents”;
- an article about the Supreme Court’s denial of “a petition asking the High Court to clarify patent eligibility jurisprudence under Section 101 since its 2014 ruling in Alice“; and
- a similar blog post discussing the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in three patent cases and commenting that this “means that the court is unlikely to hear a patent case this term.”
Jared Foretek wrote an article for Law360 discussing skepticism from Federal Circuit judges over “arguments that the former CEO of Trading Technologies International is entitled to nearly $1 billion damages because IBG LLC infringed the company’s dynamic trading display patents.” Foretek notes how “one panelist [said] his interpretation of a 2018 Supreme Court ruling would “blow up” well-worn precedent about U.S courts not applying U.S. law abroad.”
Eileen McDermott authored an article for IP Watchdog about the Supreme Court’s denial of “a petition asking the High Court to clarify patent eligibility jurisprudence under Section 101 since its 2014 ruling in Alice.” According to McDermott, the petitioner, Realtime, argued that “this would have been the perfect case to address the abstract idea exception, arguing that it highlights the disagreement and confusion on the topic among Federal Circuit judges.”
Dennis Crouch authored a similar blog post discussing the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in three patent cases and commenting how this “means that the court is unlikely to hear a patent case this term.” Additionally, Crouch notes how, “[w]ith these three denials on widely-varying patent issues, the Court seems inclined to let CAFC precedent control in these areas for now.”