Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article highlighting how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office urged the Federal Circuit on Friday to reject allegations that its handling of policies governing Fintiv-based discretionary denials violates due process”;
- a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “reversed a $106 million jury verdict” in “a decision that broadens the reach of prosecution history estoppel (and thus limits doctrine of equivalents)”; and
- an article suggesting that the Federal Circuit “took an important initial step toward recalibration” when it “mandated the retrial of a $20 million damages ruling in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC.“
Dani Kass authored an article for Law 360 highlighting how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office urged the Federal Circuit on Friday to reject allegations that its handling of policies governing Fintiv-based discretionary denials violates due process.” According to Kass, the agency and Stewart claimed “the memorandum underlying the standard was always temporary, and that they can’t be bound by a prior administration’s discretionary policies.”
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for PatentlyO discussing how the Federal Circuit “reversed a $106 million jury verdict in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, . . . a decision that broadens the reach of prosecution history estoppel (and thus limits doctrine of equivalents.)” According to Crouch, the decision “represents a notable, but not surprising, expansion of estoppel doctrine beyond traditional claim amendments to encompass strategic claim cancellations that communicate narrowing to persons of ordinary skill in the art.”
William Lee and Mark Lemley wrote an article with Bloomberg Law suggesting that the Federal Circuit “took an important initial step toward recalibration” when it “mandated the retrial of a $20 million damages ruling in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC.” According to Lee and Lemley, in doing so, the Federal Circuit “wisely reinforced judges’ responsibility to act as gatekeepers, ensuring that juries receive credible information from expert witnesses and aren’t steered toward inflated awards improperly.” Lee and Lemley suggested the Federal Circuit now “must restore the balance in full by consistently enforcing established legal principles, verifying that damages are grounded in patents’ actual values.”