Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights an article summarizing a recent decision in a pharmaceutical case, commentary on a recent opinion addressing a bid challenge, and news concerning FanDuel’s challenge to a patent claiming a remote gambling system.

Britain Eakin reported for Law360 on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. As Eakin explains, “the panel’s majority said it found no error in the lower court’s conclusion that [a] licensing agreement requires the claims in [a] third-party case to be both asserted and adjudicated” before Mylan would be barred from launching a generic drug. Eakin goes on to explain how the panel held that “[r]eading the agreement Takeda’s way . . . would lead ‘to the absurd result that Takeda could prevent Mylan from ever relying on the [relevant] clause by simply asserting and then withdrawing a claim from a proceeding.'” For more on this case, see our case page and our opinion summary.

Adam Bartolanzo and John Chierichella provided commentary for The National Law Review concerning the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Inserso Corp. v. United States, a case concerning a bid protest. As they explain, the court held that, in situations where a contractor “knew or should have known” of competitively prejudicial aspects of a bidding process, a protest will be considered timely only if it is raised before the close of the bidding process. As a result, say Bartolanzo and Chierichella, “contractors may want to consider a ‘suspect something, say something’ approach to bringing protests . . . : even if there is [only] a suspicion before the time of proposal submission that a procurement error could occur based on ‘the law and facts’ at hand, it should be brought to the attention of government contract counsel immediately, so a protest can be filed in time and the risk of waiver avoided.” They concede that, using this approach, “[t]he protest may be dismissed as premature.” But, they say, “that is far preferable to holding your cards and ending up with a losing hand.”

Jan Wolfe filed a news report for Reuters discussing how FanDuel, the online sports betting company, narrowly lost part of a recent appeal to the Federal Circuit. As reported by Wolfe, in FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC, “a 2-1 decision affirming an administrative patent court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said part of a CG Technology patent on a remote gambling system was valid, rejecting arguments by FanDuel that the claimed technology was obvious.”