Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article reporting how the Federal Circuit yesterday reheard a case “asking it to restrict the kinds of evidence expert witnesses can describe to juries while litigants argue over patent-infringement damages”;
- a blog post arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “highlights a significant divergence between the evidentiary standards for proving prior art status in district court litigation versus [American Invents Act] trials”;
- a piece claiming “a considerable difference of opinion between the [Federal Circuit] and [International Trade Commission] regarding interpretation and performance of [licensing] declarations” submitted to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute;
- a report explaining how John Squires, “Goldman Sachs’ former longtime chief intellectual property counsel,” has been nominated “to serve as the next U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director.”
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law reporting how the Federal Circuit yesterday reheard a case “asking it to restrict the kinds of evidence expert witnesses can describe to juries while litigants argue over patent-infringement damages.” Shapiro suggested “[e]ven an incremental change to the damages evidence allowed in patent cases could have major financial implications in the high-stakes universe of infringement verdicts that frequently climb to eight- or nine-figures.” For more information, check out our argument preview for EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC.
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “highlights a significant divergence between the evidentiary standards for proving prior art status in district court litigation versus [American Invents Act] trials.” Crouch explained how in “district court litigation, a patent challenger must prove invalidity by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ – a relatively stringent standard reflecting the strong presumption of validity for issued patents.” Conversely, Crouch explained, “AIA proceedings before the PTAB employ a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard, meaning a petitioner need only prove that patent claims are ‘more likely than not’ unpatentable – a significantly lower evidentiary burden.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in CQV Co. v. Merck Patent GmbH.
Curtis Dodd and Chris Dubuc co-authored a piece for IP Watchdog claiming “a considerable difference of opinion between the [Federal Circuit] and [International Trade Commission] regarding interpretation and performance of [licensing] declarations” submitted to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute. The coauthors analyze the differences between the two adjudicative bodies by comparing cases considering “the appropriateness of injunctive relief in view of licensing declarations submitted to ETSI.”
Dani Kass filed a report for Law 360 explaining how John Squires, “Goldman Sachs’ former longtime chief intellectual property counsel,” has been nominated “to serve as the next U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director.” Kass discussed how if Squires is confirmed he will “take the reins from [Acting Director Coke Morgan] Stewart, who would then serve as deputy director.”