Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing “what’s at stake in pending Federal Circuit design patent case”;
- an article highlighting a recent notice by the USPTO published in the Federal Register “providing updated guidance for agency decision-makers on proper determinations of obviousness under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.”; and
- an article about how “[t]he Federal Circuit reversed a district court judge’s dismissal of a breach-of-contract lawsuit against MasterCard International Inc. over a licensing agreement the company entered with patent owner AlexSam Inc.”
Larry DeMeo wrote an article for Law360 discussing “what’s at stake in pending Federal Circuit design patent case.” DeMeo highlights oral arguments at the Federal Circuit in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC. According to DeMeo, the outcome of the case “has ramifications in any industry where ornamental design is an important and valuable property — including fashion, jewelry design or, in this case, automotive, to name just a few.”
Steve Brachmann wrote an article for IP Watchdog highlighting a recent notice by the USPTO published in the Federal Register “providing updated guidance for agency decision-makers on proper determinations of obviousness under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.” Brachmann notes how the guidance “traces 15 years of case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to clarify several areas of confusion stemming from the Supreme Court’s calls for a flexible approach to the obviousness analysis for patent validity.”
Michael Shapiro wrote an article for Bloomberg Law about how “[t]he Federal Circuit reversed a district court judge’s dismissal of a breach-of-contract lawsuit against MasterCard International Inc. over a licensing agreement the company entered with patent owner AlexSam Inc.” According to Shapiro, the court “said that while a covenant not to sue contained in the agreement barred suits like AlexSam’s over non-payment of licensing royalties, it applied only during the term of the agreement, which has expired.” The case is AlexSam, Inc. v. MasterCard Int’l Inc.