Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article arguing the “full Federal Circuit should reject an ill-conceived request by major players in the repair parts industry” after yesterday’s arguments in a design patent case; and
- an article discussing how the Federal Circuit agreed “with a lower court’s conclusion that claims in an Eolas Technologies Inc. 1994 web patent weren’t actually valid, handing a win to Google, Amazon and Walmart.”
An article authored by Christopher Carani and Dunstan Barnes for Bloomberg Law argues the “full Federal Circuit should reject an ill-conceived request by major players in the repair parts industry” after yesterday’s arguments in a design patent case. The article rejects the “extraordinary request” in in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC “asking the full court to scrap the existing framework for assessing design patent obviousness.”
An article written by Adam Lidgett for Law360 discusses how the Federal Circuit agreed “with a lower court’s conclusion that claims in an Eolas Technologies Inc. 1994 web patent weren’t actually valid, handing a win to Google, Amazon and Walmart.” According to Lidgett, the “patent-at-issue describes using multiple computers on the World Wide Web to perform tasks that would be bandwidth-intensive for a single computer,” which the Federal Circuit said “covers nothing more than an abstract idea that is not eligible for a patent.”