Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing why “inventors [should be] wary of exhibiting their inventions too early”;
- a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision finding a district court’s “preliminary injunction barring the owner of patents . . . from communicating to its customers that a competitor was infringing its patents” was an abuse of its discretion; and
- another article about a former Sirius XM executive’s “challenge to an order compelling her to testify in a patent dispute” and the conclusion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the Federal Circuit held jurisdiction over an appeal from the order.
Kelcee Griffis wrote an article for Bloomberg Law discussing why “inventors [should be] wary of exhibiting their inventions too early.” Griffis explained that two recent Federal Circuit decisions “are a reminder that inventors must file to protect their discoveries before sharing their breakthroughs with the public” or “risk losing patent protection.”
Eileen McDermott authored a blog post for IPWatchdog about a Federal Circuit decision finding a district court’s “preliminary injunction barring the owner of patents . . . from communicating to its customers that a competitor was infringing its patents” was an abuse of its discretion. McDermott highlighted how, “[b]efore filing the lawsuit, Lite-Netics sent its customers . . . communications alerting them to infringing competitors in the market.” McDeromott further explained how the first letter did not name the accused infringer, but in a second letter Lite-Netics “wrote to its customers informing them of the lawsuit and the infringement,” including the name of the accused infringer.
Rachel Riley wrote an article for Law360 about a former Sirius XM executive’s “challenge to an order compelling her to testify in a patent dispute.” She noted a D.C. Circuit panel concluded her waived her argument “by sitting for the deposition anyway.” Moreover, Riley reported, in its decision, the D.C. Circuit held that, “[e]ven if [she] hadn’t complied with the mandate, the D.C. Circuit still wouldn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case . . . [b]ecause the dispute hinges on a discovery disagreement in patent litigation.” Thus, Riley explained, the court held that “only the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could take the case.”