Federal Circuit Summaries For Week Ending January 21, 2022
Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc., v. International Trade Commission, No. 2020-1046, 2020-2050 (January 21, 2022) (precedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent Nos. 8,387,718; 8,267,296; 8,267,297; 8,286,722; and 8,602,282
• To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.
In re: Netflix, Inc., No. 2022-110 (January 19, 2022) (nonprecedential)
• After properly weighing the “sources of proof,” “compulsory process,” and “cost of attendance for willing witnesses” factors, the Federal Circuit found the time-to-trial statistics insufficient and granted a writ of mandamus directing the granting of a motion to transfer.
In re Gamble, No. 2021-1848 (January 18, 2022) (nonprecedential); U.S. Patent Application No. 14/541,132
• In a pro se appeal, the Federal Circuit held that substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s determination that the application was anticipated by prior art.
Polygroup Limited MCO v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd., No. 2021-1401, 2021-1402 (January 19, 2022) (nonprecedential); U.S. Patent Nos. 8,454,186; and 8,454,187
• The PTAB must not exceed the scope of a Federal Circuit mandate on remand.