Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article commenting on how a recent “verdict serves as a reminder of a fundamental reality in patent litigation: When a patented feature — even one representing only a small portion of the overall product — is incorporated into hundreds of millions or billions of units, it can create enormous financial exposure”; and
- an article highlighting how this week “the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list that included a denial of Google’s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s . . . development of the ‘settled expectations’ doctrine at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”
Michael Dorfman wrote an article for Law360 commenting on how a recent “verdict serves as a reminder of a fundamental reality in patent litigation: When a patented feature — even one representing only a small portion of the overall product — is incorporated into hundreds of millions or billions of units, it can create enormous financial exposure.” Dorfman suggests “[b]illion dollar verdicts are often perceived as especially vulnerable on appeal, but there is little reason to believe that size alone makes them more likely to be reversed.”
Steve Brachmann authored an article for IPWatchdog highlighting how this week “the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list that included a denial of Google’s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s . . . development of the ‘settled expectations’ doctrine at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” Brachmann notes how the denial “comes a few weeks after the U.S. Solicitor General urged denial of Google’s cert petition, agreeing with the Federal Circuit that such a challenge was not available on mandamus review.” For more information, check out the case page in Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp.