Here is the latest.

Federal Circuit Affirms Decision to Vacate Judgment Following Evidence of Fraud

Reported by Joseph Marinelli on

In his article, Joseph Marinelli describes the opinion of the Federal Circuit in the case Cap Export, LLC v. Zinus, Inc., and how it “offers useful insight into the Federal Circuit’s views on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.” Marinelli notes that, in his view, the “interesting aspect of the decision is in its conclusion, in which the Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘the functioning of the patent system requires that everything that tends to a full and fair determination of the matters in controversy should be placed before the court.’” Marinelli explains that “[t]he court’s policy statement seems to be directed at plugging the apparent loophole that Ninth Circuit law left open by layering a diligence requirement on Rule 60.” Marinelli states that this “decision may have future implications in other fraud-based defenses.”

Federal Circuit Revives Trimble Patent Claims in Jurisdiction Ruling

Reported by Blake Brittain on

Blake Brittain reports on the Federal Circuit’s opinion in the case of Trimble Inc v. PerDiemCo LLC, where the court reversed an Oakland federal court’s dismissal of the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Brittain explains the Federal Circuit held that “PerDiemCo LLC’s communications with Trimble Inc amounted to more significant contacts with the Northern District of California than the patent demand letters that the Federal Circuit has previously held don’t justify exercising personal jurisdiction.” Brittain reports that the PerDiemCo attorney, Patrick Coyne, claimed that this ruling by the Federal Circuit “creates an incentive for patent owners to sue first instead of trying to resolve disputes outside of court.”

License Agreement Not Enough for Standing on Appeal of an IPR Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.

Reported by Alexandra Leigh Lodge and George E. Quillin on

In their article, Alexandra Leigh Lodge and George E. Quillin report on a recent precedential decision by the Federal Circuit holding “that Apple lacked standing to appeal from its loss as petitioner in a couple of inter partes reviews (IPRs) against patent owner Qualcomm.” In particular, they explain that “Apple was unable to prove that it had standing to appeal the Board’s final written decisions based on its argument of ongoing payment obligations under a license agreement.” Lodge and Quillin note that future litigants may learn from this case by arguing “that the challenged patents in the license agreement affected the challenger’s ongoing payment obligations”, “showing standing by identifying a contractual dispute involving the ongoing payment obligations”, or proving “with specificity, that the patent owner was likely to assert the licensed patents against the challenger upon the expiration of the license.”