Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about the potential impact on the value of patents for universities if the Supreme Court grants review in a recent case decided by the Federal Circuit;
- another article reporting how “U.S. District Judge Alan Albright won’t transfer a cryptographic data technology patent suit against Microsoft Corp.”; and
- a blog post about a district court finding a patent that “covers a process for allowing users to upload ‘dynamic albums’ to be stored on their devices” to be patent ineligible.
Alfonso Chan wrote an article for Bloomberg Law about about the potential impact on the value of patents for universities if the Supreme Court grants review in a recent case decided by the Federal Circuit, Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology. Chan highlighted how, “[u]nder the Bayh-Dole Act, U.S. universities invent, obtain patents, and license those patents for commercialization by private companies,” with “[r]evenues generated by patent licensing [being] reinvested back into universities.” Chan reported how “[t]he Caltech case is strategically important because it may reasonably limit opportunities for challenging patent validity, thereby bolstering the value of patents that survive the IPR process.”
Adam Lidgett authored an article for Law360, reporting that “U.S. District Judge Alan Albright won’t transfer a cryptographic data technology patent suit against Microsoft Corp.” Lidgett summarized how Judge Albright found that “most factors [regarding venue transfer] were neutral and Washington had a local interest and relatively easier access to evidence, but that he can bring cases to trial three months quicker than Washington due to ‘court congestion.’” Moreover, Lidgett highlighted Judge Albright’s reasoning that court congestion is the “most speculative” factor and should not outweigh several relevant factors weighing in favor of transfer.
Eileen McDermott wrote a blog post for IPWatchdog about how the Southern District of New York found a patent that “covers a process for allowing users to upload ‘dynamic albums’ to be stored on their devices” to be patent ineligible. McDermott highlighted how “the patent’s specification states that ‘the patent seeks to remedy certain problems that currently exist with music streaming, including artists’ inability to effectively monetize their music, their lack of control over content once users have downloaded it, and the disconnect between streaming services and artists’ social media pages.’” McDermott reported that “the court found that the patent claims are directed to ‘the abstract idea of remotely updating content on a user device.’”