Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post about Judge Albright granting a motion to transfer venue while determining “the Federal Circuit had reached conclusions different from the Fifth Circuit on what Fifth Circuit law was”;
- another blog post about a Supreme Court petition that “seek[s] clarification of the collateral estoppel doctrine” applied by the Federal Circuit to patent infringement litigation after a patent is invalidated in a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
- an article about Formula One settling a patent infringement suit over a mandatory safety feature.
David Hricik wrote a blog post for PatentlyO about Judge Albright granting a “motion to transfer venue . . . from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California.” Notably, Hricik highlights, in doing so Judge Albright indicated that “the Federal Circuit had reached conclusions different from the Fifth Circuit on what Fifth Circuit law was.” Hricik asserted that, “according to Judge Albright,” the “Federal Circuit instructed [district judges] not to follow [the Fifth Circuit’s] approach.”
Eileen McDermott authored a blog post for IPWatchdog about a Supreme Court petition filed by Jump Rope Systems, LLC that “seek[s] clarification of the collateral estoppel doctrine as applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” McDermott highlighted concern with the “bar [to] a patent infringement suit in district court where the CAFC has affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of unpatentability.”
Kelcee Griffis published an article for Bloomberg Law about Formula One settling a patent infringement suit over a mandatory safety feature known as Halo cockpit bars. Griffis reported that “Nygaard sued the FIA—world motorsports’ governing body—and F1 in March 2020” for patent infringement after “Nygaard claimed the series never secured a license or paid him royalties for use of the designs.”