Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about a petition requesting the Supreme Court to “weigh in” on the Federal Circuit’s “ruling that created a new standard for how courts should review challenges to design patents”; and
- an article discussing a Federal Circuit opinion that “vacated [a] district court’s final judgment due to an erroneous jury instruction on obviousness.”
Andrew Karpan wrote an article for Law360 about a petition requesting the Supreme Court to “weigh in” on the Federal Circuit’s “ruling that created a new standard for how courts should review challenges to design patents” Karpan highlights how the “latest Federal Circuit ruling in the case . . . marked the first time the appeals court had ‘articulate[d] the proper scope of comparison prior art’ in a design patent case, and it dictated that another jury would have to hear the case using the new rules.” The case is Seirus Innovative Accessories v. Columbia Sportswear North America.
Steve Brachmann authored an article for IP Watchdog discussing a Federal Circuit opinion that “vacated [a] district court’s final judgment due to an erroneous jury instruction on obviousness.” According to Brachmann, the “jury instruction only asked the jury to consider the secondary considerations of commercial success and long-felt need. . . [and] failed to address Inline’s evidence of industry praise, another objective indicia of nonobviousness.” The case is Inline Plastics Corp. v. Lacerta Group, LLC.