Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision finding “an isolated form of vitamin B3″ to be “unpatentable subject matter under Section 101”;
- an article about Optis Cellular urging the Federal Circuit “not to reverse a Texas federal jury’s nine-figure infringement judgment against Apple, Inc.”; and
- another article about the Federal Circuit “reviv[ing] a long-running infringement lawsuit Bard brought against Pennsylvania-based Medical Components Inc.”
Eileen McDermott wrote a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision finding “an isolated form of vitamin B3″ to be “unpatentable subject matter under Section 101” because “the claims were directed to a natural phenomenon.” McDermott explained how “[n]icotinamide ribose (NR)” is a “form of vitamin B3 that is naturally present in cow’s milk” and how the relevant invention “covers a composition containing isolated NR that results in increased biosynthesis of the coenzyme nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) upon oral administration.”
Jasmin Jackson authored an article for Law360 about Optis Cellular urging the Federal Circuit “not to reverse a Texas federal jury’s nine-figure infringement judgment against Apple, Inc.” According to Optis Cellular, “if anything, the $300 million award should be nearly doubled.” Jackson explained how the original suit concerned alleged infringement of “standard-essential 4G wireless patents.”
Blake Brittain wrote an article for Reuters about the Federal Circuit “reviv[ing] a long-running infringement lawsuit Bard brought against Pennsylvania-based Medical Components Inc.” Brittain reported how the Federal Circuit “reinstat[ed] three patents related to [Bard’s] PowerPort devices for delivering repeated medical injections.”