Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights Reuters’ reporting on a recent Federal Circuit decision, an article about litigation funding firms “betting big” on a particular outcome at the Supreme Court, and recent comments on a pending petition for certiorari.
Reuters reported on the Federal Circuit’s mixed ruling in VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., where the court “left in place a Texas jury’s finding that Apple iPhones infringed two VirnetX patents,” “reversed the jury’s infringement finding on two other patents,” and “voided a jury’s calculation that Apple Inc (AAPL.O) should pay $503 million.” Reuters noted that “VirnetX and Apple have been fighting over patents since 2010 in rollercoaster litigation that has triggered wild swings in [VirnetX’s] stock price.” The New York Times picked up Reuters’ report.
Shelby Livingston filed an article with Crain’s Chicago Business about how litigation funding firms are “betting big” on the petitioners in Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United States. As she explains, these firms are “offer[ing] to pay cash upfront in exchange for a significant share of the legal awards should the court rule in the insurers’ favor.”
Over at PatentlyO, Dennis Crouch briefly commented on the pending petition for certiorari in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC. Picking up on arguments in the brief in opposition that the Court should defer to Congress on patent eligibility, Crouch highlights that “[f]or the past 230 years, the U.S. Courts have been doing their work on the statute—adding atextual gloss and meaning,” while Congress “has left this language virtually untouched.”