Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post discussing a recently filed petition for a writ of certiorari of a “May 2023 decision by the Federal Circuit that invalidated claims . . . covering method of treating Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder”;
- an article highlighting a Federal Circuit ruling “that a Georgia inventor’s car remote-starter patent that his company alleges was infringed by BMW AG is invalid in light of two previously published inventions”; and
- an article about how the Federal Circuit “denied Charles Bertini’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to decide his trademark cancellation case against Apple, Inc.”
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO discussing a recently filed petition for a writ of certiorari of a “May 2023 decision by the Federal Circuit that invalidated claims . . . covering method of treating Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder.” Crouch notes how the question presented in Vanda Pharmaceuticals v. Teva Pharmaceuticals “is whether obviousness requires a showing of ‘predictable’ results, as suggested in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., or if a ‘reasonable expectation of success’ is sufficient.”
Michael Shapiro wrote an article for Bloomberg Law highlighting a Federal Circuit ruling “that a Georgia inventor’s car remote-starter patent that his company alleges was infringed by BMW AG is invalid in light of two previously published inventions.” As explained by Shapiro, the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB “was justified in finding that Omega’s 2016 patent, which also included features designed to stop remotely-started cars from rolling off, was obvious in light of a combination of the earlier patents.”
Eileen McDermott wrote an article for IPWatchdog about how the Federal Circuit “denied Charles Bertini’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to decide his trademark cancellation case against Apple, Inc.” Quoting Bertini, McDermott noted that “the cancellation case has been in limbo at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) for more than three years, ‘despite [the TTAB’s] policy and frequent public statements by top USPTO officials that it decides cases after trial in approximately ten weeks.’”