Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article predicting how a recent Federal Circuit decision [will] likely provide a route for judges and plaintiffs in patent cases to circumvent an international treaty that creates hurdles when serving complaints on foreign defendants”;
- an article analyzing “the unsettled and contentions nature of [patent] infringement in the skinny-label context”; and
- an article report discussing how last week the Federal Circuit issued an order “forcing U.S. District Judge Alan Albright to move [a] patent dispute . . . from his court in Waco, Texas, . . . to Northern California.”
Ryan Davis reported for Law360 on how In re OnePlus Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. will “likely provide a route for judges and plaintiffs in patent cases to circumvent an international treaty that creates hurdles when serving complaints on foreign defendants, potentially speeding up some proceedings by many months.” Davis explained that, “[w]hile the Federal Circuit expressed ‘concerns’ about permitting alternative ways of serving complaints just to accelerate cases, it noted that federal rules give judges broad discretion in this area.”
Sarah A. Geers, Matthew J. Hertko, Gasper J. Larosa, Carly Miller, and Jason G. Winchester filed an article with Lexology analyzing “the unsettled and contentious nature of [patent] infringement in the skinny-label context.” Geers, Hertko, Larosa, Miller, and Winchester discussed a recent Federal Circuit decision, GlaxoSmithLine LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., they say indicates “that the use of a skinny label is not a dispositive noninfringement argument, at least after the product has been launched.” They explain that “courts can consider all evidence, including the label, expert testimony, and marketing and promotional materials[,] to assess infringement.”
Blake Brittain reported for Reuters on how “[n]etworking tech company Juniper Networks won an order on Friday from the [Federal Circuit] forcing U.S. District Judge Alan Albright to move its patent dispute with Brazos Licensing and Development from his court in Waco, Texas, . . . to Northern California.” Brittain detailed the reasoning for the outcome, noting that “[t]he appeals court said that Albright incorrectly gave little weight to the convenience of California for potential witnesses.”