Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing how the Supreme Court “justices declined to review the Federal Circuit’s holding that the one-year window for filing inter partes review petitions does not apply to companies seeking to join a challenge brought by another company”; and
- an article presenting “post-argument thoughts” on the Federal Circuit’s recent “en banc oral argument to reconsider the obviousness test for design patents.”
Ryan Davis wrote an article for Law360 discussing how the Supreme Court “justices declined to review the Federal Circuit’s holding that the one-year window for filing inter partes review petitions does not apply to companies seeking to join a challenge brought by another company.” As explained by Davis, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to allow Apple to join reviews of VirnetX’s patents initiated by a third party, “and then the following day threw out the $576 million jury verdict VirnetX had won against Apple.” For more information, check out our case page.
Charles L. Mauro wrote an article for IP Watchdog presenting “post-argument thoughts” on the Federal Circuit’s recent “en banc oral argument to reconsider the obviousness test for design patents” in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC. Mauro “highlight[s] the designer’s voice by providing answers to several critical questions posed by the court during oral argument.” See our argument recap for our summary of the argument.