Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a blog post suggesting the “Federal Circuit’s tightening of the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of nonobviousness has become one of the most consequential doctrinal developments in patent law over the past decade”;
- an article reporting that “Big Tech companies and the lawyers who represent them are expressing disappointment that the nation’s top patent court is declining to rein in changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”
- a blog post highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit decision “underscores the critical importance of rigorously documenting inventorship, maintaining contact with all contributors, and proactively managing inventorship determinations before patent applications are filed”; and
- an article analyzing another recent Federal Circuit decision that found an “accused device to be plainly dissimilar” to a “claimed design . . . even though lay observers might initially see close visual similarity.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO suggesting the “Federal Circuit’s tightening of the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of nonobviousness has become one of the most consequential doctrinal developments in patent law over the past decade.” He indicates the court’s “approach has made it increasingly difficult for patent owners to leverage evidence of commercial success, industry praise, and long-felt need in the obviousness analysis.”
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law reporting that “Big Tech companies and the lawyers who represent them are expressing disappointment that the nation’s top patent court is declining to rein in changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.” Shapiro points out how the Federal Circuit “has rejected . . . 13 mandamus petitions urging the court to roll back changes to Patent Trial and Appeal Board procedures.”
Lisa Mueller wrote a blog post for Patent Panorama highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit decision “underscores the critical importance of rigorously documenting inventorship, maintaining contact with all contributors, and proactively managing inventorship determinations before patent applications are filed.” Mueller emphasizes that the “decision reinforces that inventorship is not a ministerial detail to be addressed after the fact, it is a foundational element of patent validity that must be managed with the same care and rigor.” For more information on the underlying case, check out the opinion in Fortress Iron LP v. Digger Specialties Inc.
Cory Smith and George Chen authored an article for Law360 analyzing another recent Federal Circuit decision that found an “accused device to be plainly dissimilar” to a “claimed design . . . even though lay observers might initially see close visual similarity.” The authors suggest design patents “are powerful, but their scope can be narrow,” because “the legal comparison begins by subtracting the features that make them look alike if those features are functional or are present in the prior art.” For more information on this case, check out the opinion in Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc.