Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a news alert reporting how “Dish Network LLC asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether courts can require attorneys to pay legal fees in exceptionally frivolous patent cases”;
- a blog post analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision where the central issue in the case “revolved around the interpretation of [35 U.S.C.] § 311(b)’s limitation that [inter partes review] challenges may be based only on ‘prior art consisting of patents or printed publications'”; and
- an article covering how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision “canceling trademarks claiming protection for the pink color of ceramic hip components.”
Christopher Yasiejko penned a news alert for Bloomberg Law reporting how “Dish Network LLC asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether courts can require attorneys to pay legal fees in exceptionally frivolous patent cases.” Yasiejko noted how DISH claimed in its petition for writ of certiorari that “the Federal Circuit erred in holding the Patent Act doesn’t allow courts to impose fee awards on attorneys whose conduct contributed to making a case exceptional.” For more information, see the case page here on FedCircuitBlog.
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for PatentlyO analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision where the central issue in the case “revolved around the interpretation of [35 U.S.C.] § 311(b)’s limitation that [inter partes review] challenges may be based only on ‘prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.'” Crouch questioned the court’s holding that a patent application qualifies as a “printed publication” under § 311(b) when its publication date comes after the filing date of the application at issue in the IPR. According to Crouch, this holding permits courts to “back-date the prior art status to the application’s filing date.” You can see our coverage of the case, Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., here.
William R. Hancock and Anita C. Marinelli co-authored an article for The National Law Review covering how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision “canceling trademarks claiming protection for the pink color of ceramic hip components.” The co-authors pointed out how the court “emphasiz[ed] that trademarks are not registrable or enforceable if the design is functional” and that “the functionality doctrine ensures the public is free to use innovations after a patent expires.” That case was Bitmanagement Software GmBH v. United States. For more information, check out the opinion.