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 Federal Circuit “upheld a U.S. trade tribunal’s decision that Google’s redesigns of products . . . were sufficient to avoid infringing Sonos’ multi-room wireless audio patents”;
- a blog post highlighting how a Federal Circuit decision “offers the important conclusion that a patentee has no standing to appeal an invalidity holding once the patent expires, absent some showing of likely infringement during the prior six years”; and
- an article about an argument before the Federal Circuit that a “more than $600 million judgment against NortonLifeLock for infringing Columbia University patents. . . is ‘indefensible’ and cannot stand.”
Blake Brittain wrote an article for Reuters discussing how the Federal Circuit “upheld a U.S. trade tribunal’s decision that Google’s redesigns of products . . . were sufficient to avoid infringing Sonos’ multi-room wireless audio patents.” According to Britain, “[t]he court also affirmed that the original versions of the devices infringed Sonos’ patents.”
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for Patently-O highlighting how a Federal Circuit decision “offers the important conclusion that a patentee has no standing to appeal an invalidity holding once the patent expires, absent some showing of likely infringement during the prior six years.” Crouch also notes how the “case is not so bad for the patentee because the court also vacated the IPR decision.”
Ryan Davis wrote an article for Law360 about an argument before the Federal Circuit that a “more than $600 million judgment against NortonLifeLock for infringing Columbia University patents. . . is ‘indefensible’ and cannot stand.” According to Davis, “Norton argued in an appeal brief . . . that it did not infringe the anti-malware patents and that Quinn Emanuel’s purported misconduct was merely standard patent practice.”