Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s trend of “directing Judge Alan Albright . . . to transfer a case to the Northern District of California”;
- a blog post explaining how “the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of ineligibility for claims directed to a computer authentication method”;
- an article assessing how the Federal Circuit “[a]ddress[ed] venue in the context of a Hatch-Waxman case” and “explained that sending a paragraph IV notice letter to a company in the district is insufficient to establish venue”; and
- another article discussing a Federal Circuit ruling in a government contract case.
Eileen McDermott filed an article with IPWatchdog analyzing how in In re Google LLC, the Federal Circuit continued its trend “of granting mandamus directing Judge Alan Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer a case to the Northern District of California.”
Christopher C. Johns published a blog post for the Finnegan IP Blog explaining how, in CosmoKey Solutions GMBH & Co. v. Duo Security LLC, “the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of ineligibility for claims directed to a computer authentication method.” Johns highlighted that the majority “was ‘not convinced’ the claims were broadly ‘directed to’ authentication, instead noting the focus of the claims and the specification on the activation of a timed authentication function.”
Mike Baldwin wrote an article published at JD Supra assessing how the Federal Circuit, in Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., “[a]ddress[ed] venue in the context of a Hatch-Waxman case.” He discussed how the court “explained that sending a paragraph IV notice letter to a company in the district is insufficient to establish venue.” Baldwin emphasized how “[t]he Court affirmed a district court finding that venue was improper since the defendant had not committed any acts of infringement and did not have a regular and established place of business in the district.”
Daniel Wilson authored an article for Law360 discussing how, in JKB Solutions and Services v. United States, the Federal Circuit “overturned a ruling that the Army had effectively terminated a deal with a contractor for convenience when it did not order all training courses covered by a contract, saying a termination clause did not apply to services contracts.”