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 presentation of an “annual Pauline Newman Award” by IPWatchdog that included a discussion involving former Federal Circuit Judge Paul Michel and Judge Newman;
- an article discussing the Federal CIrcuit’s recent decision to revive “a footwear company’s claim accusing Crocs Inc. of making misleading promotional statements about ‘patented’ foam material”; and
- a blog post suggesting another recent Federal Circuit decision “underscores the high evidentiary bar patentees must clear to invoke the entire market value rule, especially for complex, multi-component products.”
Eileen McDermott posted an article to IPWatchdog discussing “the second recipient of the annual Pauline Newman Award” at this year’s “IPWatchdog LIVE” event. McDermott explained that the presentation was followed by a discussion involving former Federal Circuit Judge Paul Michel and Judge Newman. According to McDermott, “following the award presentation, Judge Newman recounted for those present her ordeal since April 2023.”
Michael Shapiro contributed an article to Bloomberg Law discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent decision to revive “a footwear company’s claim accusing Crocs Inc. of making misleading promotional statements about ‘patented’ foam material.” As explained by Shapiro, in Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc. the Federal Circuit found that “a Colorado federal judge was rash in deciding a federal false advertising law didn’t apply.” Shapiro notes that “[t]he ruling will extend the life of an 18-year-old case, which started as a traditional patent infringement suit by Crocs.” We have been following this case because it attracted an amicus brief. We will post a full opinion summary soon.
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO suggesting another recent Federal Circuit decision that he believes “underscores the high evidentiary bar patentees must clear to invoke the entire market value rule, especially for complex, multi-component products.” According to Crouch, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc., which he describes as “partially reversing a $10.5 million jury verdict in a patent infringement case involving food processing machinery,” should serve “as a warning to patentees and their experts to develop robust, evidence-based damages theories that go beyond conclusory expert testimony.”