Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing how the Federal Circuit concluded that a district court “improperly found a contradiction between two claim limitations to arrive at its indefiniteness holding”;
- an article noting how the “Federal Circuit didn’t seem convinced Tuesday morning that a U.S. Court of Federal Claims order overturning an attorney fee award was even ripe for appeal”; and
- an article highlighting how the “Federal Circuit grilled lawyers over the validity of a patent for a ‘Tic-Tac-Fruit’ game meant to incorporate just enough elements of skill to skirt state anti-gambling laws.”
Eileen McDermott wrote an article for IP Watchdog discussing how the Federal Circuit concluded that a district court “improperly found a contradiction between two claim limitations to arrive at its indefiniteness holding.” The case is Maxell, Ltd v. Amperex Technology Ltd.
Nadia Dreid authored an article for Law360 noting how the “Federal Circuit didn’t seem convinced Tuesday morning that a U.S. Court of Federal Claims order overturning an attorney fee award was even ripe for appeal.” Dried discusses how “U.S. Circuit Judge Sharon Prost was the most outspoken about the last-minute challenge.
Michael Shapiro wrote an article for Bloomberg Law highlighting how the “Federal Circuit grilled lawyers over the validity of a patent for a ‘Tic-Tac-Fruit’ game meant to incorporate just enough elements of skill to skirt state anti-gambling laws.” According to Shapiro, “[d]uring oral argument Monday, appellate judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seemed skeptical of the patent’s purported innovations.”