Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing how the Federal Circuit determined that an “Apple Inc lawsuit . . . over Wi-Fi messaging can move forward in California”;
- another article detailing how “the CAFC concluded that the district court’s constructions incorrectly limited claim scope to a preferred embodiment and rendered certain dependent claims superfluous”; and
- yet another article explaining how, in Intel Corp v XMTT, Inc., “Intel was dealt a loss in its challenge of a computer memory patent when the Federal Circuit on Tuesday refused to consider the tech company’s arguments that the court said were ‘clearly inconsistent’ with what it presented to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”
Blake Brittain filed an article with Reuters discussing how, in Apple Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc., the Federal Circuit explained that “a California court wrongly decided it lacked jurisdiction over Apple’s adversary, Greenville, S.C.-based Zipit Wireless” because “[c]ommunications with Apple justified case in Apple’s home district.”
Lexology published an article detailing how, in Littlefuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., “the CAFC concluded that the district court’s constructions incorrectly limited claim scope to a preferred embodiment and rendered certain dependent claims superfluous.”
Tiffany Hu wrote an article for Law360 explaining how, in Intel Corp v XMTT, Inc., “Intel was dealt a loss in its challenge of a computer memory patent when the Federal Circuit . . . refused to consider the tech company’s arguments that the court said were ‘clearly inconsistent’ with what it presented to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” Hu highlighted that “a three-judge panel affirmed the PTAB’s ruling that none of the challenged claims in XMTT Inc.’s patent was obvious due to prior inventions.”