Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases, including news that the Federal Circuit stayed a judgment pending resolution of a petition for certiorari, commentaries on two recent panel decisions, and a note that Oracle will appeal its loss in a government contract case.
On Law360, Britain Eakin reports that “the Federal Circuit has agreed to Time Warner Cable’s request to stay a $145 million judgment for infringing five Sprint internet calling patents while the cable giant fights the award at the U.S. Supreme Court,” finding that the stay “would impose only a ‘relatively modest’ burden on Sprint Communications Co.”
At PatentlyO, Dennis Crouch commented on the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. International Trade Commission. He explains that while “’lofty’ batting is a term of degree whose boundary is not fully clear . . . it is clear enough for patent law work” because patent law’s indefiniteness requirement permits “some modicum of uncertainty.”
Kevin E. Noonan of Patent Docs commented on Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC. He explained that “[t]he Federal Circuit applied the constitutional principle under Article III that there must be a case or controversy for a federal court to enter judgment (in this case, of invalidity) in ANDA litigation,” and the court found that a case or controversy “can be vitiated by a statutory disclaimer of patent claims prior to judgment.”
Andrew Eversden of the Federal Times reports that “Oracle has appealed its claims court loss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in yet another escalation in the Pentagon’s troubled acquisition of its general services cloud.”