Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing oral arguments at the Federal Circuit in three appeals between Masimo Corp. and Apple Inc. involving “a series of Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings that inventions described in Masimo’s patents were obvious and therefore unpatentable”;
- an article about how LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations holds the potential to make changes to the longstanding test for design patent obviousness; and
- an article analyzing the potential impact of a former soldier’s argument that the “U.S. Supreme Court [should] reverse a Federal Circuit decision that he claimed wrongly reduced his access to increased benefits Congress granted to wartime veterans.”
Jorja Siemons and Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing oral arguments at the Federal Circuit in three appeals between Masimo Corp. and Apple Inc. involving “a series of Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings that inventions described in Masimo’s patents were obvious and therefore unpatentable.” The article highlights how the PTAB “cancel[ed] parts of 13 blood oximeter patents that Masimo Corp. says the tech giant infringed through sales of smart watches.”
Alfonso Cutaia, Samuel Kielar, Nathanial Lucek, Charles Rauch, R. Kent Roberts and George Snyder wrote an article published by JDSupra about how LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations holds the potential to make changes to the longstanding test for design patent obviousness. The authors discuss how the Federal Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc and “requested briefing on several issues, including whether: (1) KSR overrules or abrogates In re Rosen and Durling; and (2) the Rosen-Durling test should be modified or eliminated.” The authors suggest “[t]he Federal Circuit’s en banc review seems likely to lead to a clarification of Rosen or set forth a new test.”
Micah Danney wrote an article for Law360 analyzing the potential impact of a former soldier’s argument that the “U.S. Supreme Court [should] reverse a Federal Circuit decision that he claimed wrongly reduced his access to increased benefits Congress granted to wartime veterans.” According the Danney, Rudisil argues the decision “forces such veterans to be limited to 12 months of the more valuable wartime benefits if they want to receive 48 months by requiring that they use all 36 months of the older peacetime benefits.” For more information, check out our coverage of the case, Rudisill v. McDonough.