Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article reporting how last week “the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for writ of certiorari in several appeals involving intellectual property claims”;
- a blog post arguing that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “significantly expands what activities can establish a ‘domestic industry’ under the International Trade Commission’s patent power found in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)”;
- a piece claiming the Federal Circuit recently “indicated . . . that it doesn’t plan to overturn precedent holding that inventors forfeit their patent rights when they cause unreasonable delays in the application process”; and
- a report explaining how Cellspin Soft, Inc. recently petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming the Federal Circuit “wrongly upheld a district court’s decision not to recuse herself before clearing companies including Google LLC unit Fitbit LLC in a patent-infringement suit.”
Steve Brachman wrote an article for IP Watchdog reporting how last week “the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for writ of certiorari in several appeals involving intellectual property claims.” Brachman described how each of these cases involved an appeal that had previously been decided by the Federal Circuit.
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO arguing that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “significantly expands what activities can establish a ‘domestic industry’ under the International Trade Commission’s patent power found in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2).” Crouch suggested “companies that design products in the U.S. but manufacture them abroad may now be able to rely on their domestic sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution activities to meet the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission.
Ryan Davis authored a piece for Law 360 claiming the Federal Circuit recently “indicated . . . that it doesn’t plan to overturn precedent holding that inventors forfeit their patent rights when they cause unreasonable delays in the application process.” Davis explained how the panel of three Federal Circuit judges told appellants’ counsel that “it would take the full court” to overturn precedent in the area of patent prosecution laches.
Adam M. Taylor filed a report for Bloomberg Law explaining how Cellspin Soft, Inc. recently petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming the Federal Circuit “wrongly upheld a district court’s decision not to recuse herself before clearing companies including Google LLC unit Fitbit LLC in a patent-infringement suit.” Taylor discussed how Cellspin claimed that District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ “venture capital spouse has taken $700 million in part from Google, . . . has five separate publicly-announced strategic partnerships with Google, and the judge herself owns anywhere between $5-$25 million in a specific hedge fund.” For more information, check out the relevant Federal Circuit opinion in Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC.