Here’s the latest.

Federal Circuit Sidesteps Notice Issue For Companies Tied To Microsoft

Reported by Britain Eakin on

This week in Iron Oak Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, the Federal Circuit held that Iron Oak did not give Microsoft the requisite pre-suit infringement notice. However, the court only limited its decision on the notice issue to Microsoft. The Federal Circuit refused to answer the notice question related to other manufacturers arguing that the Court did not have jurisdiction because the other parties were not parties in the case but parties in other pending suits. Eakin reported:

To the extent the district court’s final judgment purports to extend beyond the only party to this case, Microsoft, and to the sufficiency of notice to defendants outside of this case, the judgment is not final,’ the decision said. ‘We take no position on the district court’s conclusion on the sufficiency of notice provided to the defendant manufacturers in the manufacturer suits because we do not have jurisdiction over that question while the manufacturer suits are still pending.

For more on this case, see our coverage.

CAFC Says District Court Abused Its Discretion in Granting Attorney’s Fees Under Sections 285 and 1117(a)

Reported by Eileen McDermott on

The Federal Circuit, in Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv n’ Care, Ltd., reversed the district court’s ruling and found that the district court abused its discretion when it awarded Luv n’ Care’s attorney’s fees. Furthermore, the court reasoned that Luv n’ Care “insufficiently presented the required facts and analysis needed to establish that Munchkin’s patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement claims were so substantively meritless to render the case exceptional.” However, the Federal Circuit said:

We recognize that the district court granted [Luv n’ Care] its attorney’s fees attributable to both the district court proceeding and the related IPR proceeding, but in light of reversing the award of fees, we do not reach this issue of whether in the circumstances of this case § 285 permits recovery of attorney’s fees for parallel USPTO proceedings.

For more on this case, see our coverage.

Chrimar Systems v. ALE USA Inc

Reported by Ambrogio Visconti on

Chrimar Systems asks the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision to remand with instructions to dismiss Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. ALE USA Inc., decided on September 19th, 2019. The Federal Circuit invalidated all four of Chrimar’s patents-in-suit and barred Chrimar from continuing to enforce the patents. Following Chrimar’s petition for certiorari, Visconti states:

In its brief in opposition, ALE asked the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the petition, stating that the patent claims on which Chrimar based its assertions of patent infringement have been canceled by the USPTO following the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of IPR decisions and the Court’s denial of certiorari.

For the latest on this petition, see our coverage.