Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing expert testimony;
- an article addressing another recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the application of Supreme Court precedent on patent eligibility; and
- an article reporting on a Federal Circuit judge’s skepticism that a lower court incorrectly calculated damages in a copyright case.
Michael Shapiro wrote an article for Bloomberg Law discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing expert testimony. According to Shapiro, the Federal Circuit rejected the argument that “expert witnesses need to have relevant experience at the time of an invention.” Shapiro explains that, in Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., the court held that “‘[a]n expert need not have acquired that skill level prior to the time of the invention to be able to testify from the vantage point of a person of ordinary skill in the art'” and that “‘an expert can acquire the necessary skill level later and develop an understanding of what a person of ordinary skill knew at the time.'”
Eileen McDermott authored an article for IP Watchdog addressing another recent decision of the Federal Circuit, this one addressing the application of Supreme Court precedent on patent eligibility. McDermott explains that, in Broadband ITV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the Federal Circuit rejected the argument that the “district court improperly performed an Alice step two inquiry at Alice step one,” clarifying that “’it may be necessary to analyze conventionality at step one as well as step two, such as to determine whether a claim is directed to a longstanding or fundamental human practice or to determine what the patent asserts is the claimed advance over the prior art.’”
In an article for Law360, Daniel Wilson reports on a Federal Circuit judge’s skepticism that a lower court incorrectly calculated damages in a copyright case. According to Wilson, at a recent oral argument Judge Dyk suggested skepticism that the lower court incorrectly based its damage calculations on a “floating license approach” when the license agreement in question allowed for “unlimited downloads and installations.”