Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post discussing how, “in many IP cases involving foreign defendants,” circumventing Article 5 of the Hague Convention may provide a “sense of victory [that] might be premature”;
- an article addressing “whether portfolio patent licenses can be sufficiently comparable to a single-patent license for the purposes of supporting a patent damages verdict”;
- another blog post detailing the Federal Circuit’s clarification of “the distinction between conduct warranting enhanced damages and the lesser standard of willful infringement”; and
- a report about how the Federal Circuit “revived a military security contractor’s bid for reimbursement of a penalty charged by Afghanistan’s government.”
Marketa Trimble authored a guest post for Patently-O on how the Federal Circuit denied mandamus in In re OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co. As she explained, the Federal Circuit “confirm[ed] that the plaintiff may bypass Article 5 of the Hague Convention on the Service of Process and serve the Chinese defendant through alternative service to attorneys located in California who had represented the defendant in the past.” Trimble further explained that “[w]hat ultimately matters is whether a judgment resulting from a U.S. dispute is enforceable—either in the United States or abroad.”
Christopher M. Bruno filed an article with The National Law Review “[e]xamining whether portfolio patent licenses can be sufficiently comparable to a single-patent license for the purposes of supporting a patent damages verdict.” Bruno focused on Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp., emphasizing that “[t]his case presents a challenge for patentees seeking to rely on portfolio licenses as comparable valuations for cases asserting less than a complete portfolio.”
Daniel M. Jordan wrote a post for Finnegan IP Blog analyzing how, in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., “the Federal Circuit reinstated the jury’s willful infringement verdict and restored the district court’s award of enhanced damages.” Jordan highlighted how the court explained that “[w]illful infringement requires ‘no more than deliberate or intentional infringement.'” Jordan went on to point out that the court indicated enhanced damages, however, are reserved for ‘wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior.'”
Daniel Wilson reported for Law360 on the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Triple Canopy, Inc. v. Secretary of the Air Force. In particular, Wilson explained how “[t]he Federal Circuit . . . revived a military security contractor’s bid for reimbursement of a penalty charged by Afghanistan’s government.” Wilson noted how the court said “the company had timely filed its cost claims after pursuing a contractually mandatory appeals process.”