Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights news related to the Federal Circuit’s October hearings, a comment on a petition pending before the Supreme Court, a note on a recent amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court, and a discussion of a recent Federal Circuit opinion on the necessity of adequate notice of changes in patent infringement theories.
As a reminder, the Federal Circuit will hold some of its hearings next week in Dallas-Fort Worth at the Earle Cabell Federal Building & United States Courthouse, SMU Dedman School of Law, and Texas A&M University School of Law on October 1 and 2. The Dallas Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Section will also hold a 25th Anniversary Celebration on October 1 welcoming the Federal Circuit judges to Dallas.
Dennis Crouch of Patently-O commented on the petition for certiorari in Eli Lilly and Company v. Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep Gbr, “[o]ne of the more interesting pending [petitions] before the U.S. Supreme Court,” noting that the question presented is “[w]hether a single-step patent claim that describes its point of novelty solely in functional terms violates the rule against functional claiming set forth in Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946),” and that “Uropep has now filed its brief in opposition to certiorari.”
At World Intellectual Property Review, Rory O’Neill reported that the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) recently filed an amicus brief in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil, in which the Supreme Court previously granted certiorari, urging the “Supreme Court to rule that willful infringement is not required for an award of profits” after “the Federal Circuit had previously found that fashion brand Fossil infringed Romag’s trademark, but did not award profits.”
Patent Docs’ Donald Zuhn highlighted the Federal Circuit’s decision in Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., in which the court held “that the District Court was within its discretion to exclude the infringement opinion of Phigenix’s expert” because “Phigenix had failed to provide adequate notice of its narrowed infringement theory.”