Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article highlighting how “Apple cannot sell two flagship Apple Watch models in the U.S. . . . after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled the company can no longer sell Series 9 and Ultra 2 Apple Watches with the blood oxygen feature”;
- an article about “an amicus brief filed Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” where a “federal judge in Delaware defended his authority to compel live testimony”; and
- an article discussing an “attorney representing Amazon at the Federal Circuit test[ing] the patience of U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Chen on Friday by speaking over another judge and refusing to answer direct questions.”
Blake Brittain and Stephen Nellis authored an article for Reuters highlighting how “Apple cannot sell two flagship Apple Watch models in the U.S. . . . after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled the company can no longer sell Series 9 and Ultra 2 Apple Watches with the blood oxygen feature.” According to Brittain and Nellis, the “affected watches cannot be imported starting at 5 p.m. ET (2200 GMT) on Thursday while Apple appeals a December decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to halt imports of the devices.”
Michael Shapiro wrote an article for Bloomberg Law about “an amicus brief filed Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” . . . where a “federal judge in Delaware defended his authority to compel live testimony.” Shapiro highlights Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the US District Court for the District of Delaware’s response “to arguments from Backertop Licensing LLC owner Lori LaPray that his that his efforts to compel her to fly from Texas to Delaware to testify ran afoul of civil procedure rules.”
Dani Kass authored an article for Law360 discussing an “attorney representing Amazon at the Federal Circuit test[ing] the patience of U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Chen on Friday by speaking over another judge and refusing to answer direct questions.” According to Kass, the “arguments come after a Texas federal jury in June 2021 found Amazon didn’t infringe Freshub’s [voice technology] patents.”