Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article detailing “orders [that] are the latest in a recent series from the Federal Circuit disagreeing with Albright’s analysis of transfer requests”;
- a blog post similarly discussing “[f]our new mandamus orders from the Federal Circuit stemming from Judge Alan Albright’s court in Waco Texas”;
- another article emphasizing the “the importance of contract principles in arbitrability determination[s]”; and
- another blog post explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit [is] continu[ing] its stringent (if misguided) application of the scope of subject matter eligibility by invalidating claims.”
Perry Cooper filed an article with Bloomberg Law discussing how “Atlassian Corp., Alphabet Inc.‘s Google, and Apple Inc. won’t have to fight infringement suits in Waco, Texas, after the Federal Circuit’s issued another round of decisions ordering Judge Alan Albright to relinquish patent cases.” Cooper noted that “[t]he orders are the latest in a recent series from the Federal Circuit disagreeing with Albright’s analysis of transfer requests.”
Dennis Crouch authored a post highlighting “[f]our new mandamus orders from the Federal Circuit stemming from Judge Alan Albright’s court in Waco Texas.” Crouch discussed the court’s reasoning underlying their mandamus orders.
Logan Murr published an article for IPWatchdog explaining how, in ROHM Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc., the Federal Circuit “emphasize[d] the importance of contract principles in arbitrability determination[s].” Murr stated that “the CAFC concluded that ‘[i]n contracts between sophisticated parties, it is fair to hold them to all provisions of their contract, including those incorporated by reference.'”
Kevin E. Noonan wrote a post regarding how, in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., “[t]he Federal Circuit continued its stringent (if misguided) application of the scope of subject matter eligibility by invalidating claims.” Noonan explained that, “[n]owadays, after almost a decade (the lost decade?) of the Court’s fractured subject matter eligibility jurisprudence that has spread like a stain to encompass almost every class of subject matter possible, the only emotions that arise are sadness.”