Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s decision to reject Apple Inc.’s request to “expedite oral arguments in its appeal challenging” a decision of the U.S. International Trade Commission, which banned the sale of Apple Watches with a blood oxygen feature; and
- an article detailing how in a recent decision the Federal Circuit “sided with Apple Inc.,” ending a decade-long patent dispute brought by the University of Wisconsin’s patent licensing arm involving “several generations of allegedly infringing processors used in iPhones and iPads.”
In an article for Law360, Dorothy Atkins discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision to reject Apple Inc.’s request to “expedite oral arguments in its appeal challenging” a decision of the U.S. International Trade Commission, which banned the sale of Apple Watches with a blood oxygen feature. As explained by Atkins, the Federal Circuit issued a “2-page per curiam order” denying Apple’s motion without providing any specific reasoning. The article states that “[t]he ruling is the latest development in one front of a larger legal battle between Apple and medical tech contractor Masimo Corp., which once made its own fitness-themed watch.”
Michael Shapiro reported for Bloomberg Law how in a recent decision the Federal Circuit “sided with Apple Inc.,” ending a decade-long patent dispute brought by the University of Wisconsin’s patent licensing arm involving “several generations of allegedly infringing processors used in iPhones and iPads.” As explained by Shapiro, the Federal Circuit “reinforced a Wisconsin district court’s decision rejecting the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation’s theory that Apple infringed the university’s patent under the doctrine of equivalents.”