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 in a “rare en banc” oral argument “Google LLC urged ten Federal Circuit judges to wipe out a $20 million Texas patent verdict over smart thermostats, arguing the jury shouldn’t have heard an expert witness’ description of settlements the plaintiff reached with three companies”;
- a blog post explaining how in a recent trademark opinion the Federal Circuit “clarified that terms once considered generic do not necessarily remain permanently unregistrable”;
- a piece claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “ensures that Jepson claims will never be used again”; and
- a report explaining how recently a “patent owner has told the U.S. Supreme Court that there’s momentum behind its push for scrutiny of the Federal Circuit’s one-word orders in patent cases and its challenge to courts’ summary judgment practices in such matters.”
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law reporting how last week in a “rare en banc” oral argument “Google LLC urged ten Federal Circuit judges to wipe out a $20 million Texas patent verdict over smart thermostats, arguing the jury shouldn’t have heard an expert witness’ description of settlements the plaintiff reached with three companies.” As explained by Shapiro, “[t]he case presents the court an opportunity to cabin the evidence juries can hear to determine damages—an increasingly important question as awards reach eight- and nine-figure sums.” For more information, check out the case page in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. We will post our argument recap soon.
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO explaining how in a recent trademark opinion the Federal Circuit “clarified that terms once considered generic do not necessarily remain permanently unregistrable.” Crouch discussed how the opinion “provides important guidance on genericness timing and addresses a question of first impression in trademark law.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in Bullshine Distillery LLC v. Sazerac Brands, LLC.
Gene Quinn and Steve Brachmann co-authored a piece for IP Watchdog claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “ensures that Jepson claims will never be used again.” The co-authors indicated that, accordign to the decision, parties “must disclose and describe [prior] art, or [their] Jepson claim is invalid.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in In re Xencor, Inc.
Theresa Schliep filed a report for Law 360 explaining how recently a “patent owner has told the U.S. Supreme Court that there’s momentum behind its push for scrutiny of the Federal Circuit’s one-word orders in patent cases and its challenge to courts’ summary judgment practices in such matters.” Schliep discussed how “Island Intellectual Property LLC said several pending and imminent petitions demonstrate the need for the justices to weigh in on two issues in its case: one being the Federal Circuit’s use of one-word orders that affirm holdings in patent disputes and the other being courts’ pattern of issuing summary judgment rulings despite remaining questions concerning patent validity.” Check out the relevant case page here.