Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article detailing the Federal Circuit’s grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus “[i]n its latest rebuke of Judge Alan Albright’s approach to motions to transfer cases out of his court”;
- another article focusing on how the Federal Circuit ruled that a “suit alleging that a Fujifilm subsidiary infringed its patent on an interface for digital mammography” may proceed;
- a blog post discussing how “[w]illful patent infringement can result in enhanced, and in some case treble, damages but not in every instance”; and
- another article noting that the Federal Circuit “affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction that would have forced the accused infringer to seek dismissal of its petitions for inter partes review.”
Logan Murr reported for IPWatchdog on how, “[i]n its latest rebuke of Judge Alan Albright’s approach to motions to transfer cases out of his court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on October 21 granted DISH Network’s petition for a writ of mandamus . . .” Murr explained that the petition “challeng[ed] the denial of its motion to transfer a case filed by Broadband iTV (BBiTV) from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.”
Perry Cooper filed an article with Bloomberg Law regarding how “[t]he Federal Circuit ruled that the intellectual property arm of the University of South Florida may proceed with its suit alleging that a Fujifilm subsidiary infringed its patent on an interface for digital mammography.” Cooper further noted that the “[r]uling that USF lacked standing to sue [was] vacated.”
Jo Dale Carothers authored a post on IP Law Blog discussing how, in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., the court indicated that “[w]illful patent infringement can result in enhanced, and in some case treble, damages but not in every instance.” Carothers expressed the view that “a 2019 Federal Circuit opinion caused confusion, suggesting the standards were essentially the same,” and thus “the Federal Circuit acknowledged the confusion and clarified these standards.”
David Mlaver published an article with the National Law Review, highlighting how, in Kannuu Ltd. V. Samsung Electronics Co., the Federal Circuit “affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction that would have forced the accused infringer to seek dismissal of its petitions for inter partes review (IPR) based on a forum-selection clause in an earlier nondisclosure agreement (NDA).”