- Apple and Uniloc to Spar at Federal Circuit Over ‘Judge-Shopping’ – Apple and Uniloc are scheduled to appear before the Federal Circuit for a rare oral argument on a petition for a writ of mandamus.
- PTAB Strategies and Insights – September 2020: Does the Federal Circuit Treat APA Challenges Differently if Brought by Petitioner vs. Patent Owner? Yes. – The Federal Circuit came to different conclusions when examining final written decisions appealed by a patent owner as opposed to a petitioner.
Here’s the latest.
Apple and Uniloc to Spar at Federal Circuit Over ‘Judge-Shopping’
Perry Cooper previews the oral arguments set for Tuesday between Apple and Uniloc regarding Apple’s petition for writ of mandamus overturning the Western District of Texas’s decision denying a transfer of venue.
The Federal Circuit rarely holds oral arguments on mandamus petitions, meaning the three judges assigned to the case must find that it raises interesting issues. It could be another sign that the court is keeping an eye on Albright—the sole judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas’ Waco Division—who has created a new patent litigation hot spot in the two years he’s been on the bench.
Apple alleges that Uniloc is judge-shopping and deserves a transfer to the more convenient venue of the Northern District of California. Uniloc argues that Apple’s presence in Austin is a sufficient connection to the Western District as it was in two similar cases. While the Federal Circuit has denied several writs of mandamus towards the Western District, the Federal Circuit recently granted Adobe’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
PTAB Strategies and Insights – September 2020: Does the Federal Circuit Treat APA Challenges Differently if Brought by Petitioner vs. Patent Owner? Yes.
Jason Eisenberg, Trent Merrell, and Karen Wong-Chan review two recent decisions issued by the Federal Circuit involving appeals of inter partes reviews. Recently, the Federal Circuit held in favor of a patent owner and overturned the decision of the Patent Trials and Appeals Board in Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp. However, the Federal Circuit ruled against a petitioner in FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC when the petitioner made similar arguments about potential APA violations by the PTAB. Despite the similar arguments, the petitioner failed due to the differing burdens of proof.
In an IPR, the burden of persuasion is borne by the petitioner whose petition defines the scope of litigation from institution to final decision. The patent owner’s responses are optional and do not limit the issues the Board can address in the FWD when finding a claim valid. Yet the Board is always obligated to articulate a satisfactory explanation when invalidating a claim.
For more information, see our coverage.