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 a Federal Circuit opinion that found a “Scheduling Order . . . went too far in mandating additional substantive discovery and re-briefing” in light of a pending motion to transfer;
- an article about “[t]he fourth round of a multibillion-dollar dispute between Intel and VLSI”; and
- another blog post about how Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC “has the potential of shaking up [patent law’s] disclosure doctrine.”
Eileen McDermott wrote a blog post for IPWatchdog about a Federal Circuit opinion that found a “Scheduling Order . . . went too far in mandating additional substantive discovery and re-briefing” in light of a pending motion to transfer. McDermott reported how Apple had previously asked “the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas . . . to transfer Aire’s patent infringement case against it to the Northern District of California,” but the “district court . . . sua sponte ordered additional discovery on the merits of the case, extending it for another 30 weeks, as well as an additional six weeks of re-briefing of the transfer motion.”
Britain Eakin authored an article about Law360 about “[t]he fourth round of a multibillion-dollar dispute between Intel and VLSI over the licensing company’s microchip technology patents.” Eakin discussed how “[t]he trial is the third high-dollar patent dispute between the parties to come before Judge Albright in the past 20 months,” with VLSI claiming “that Intel has sold more than 47 million chips that infringe.”
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for PatentlyO about Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a Supreme Court case that according to Crouch “has the potential of shaking up [patent law’s] disclosure doctrine.” Crouch explained how “Amgen argues that the Federal Circuit incorrectly created two separate requirements from overlapping textual portions of Section 112(a): Written Description and Enablement.” As explained by Crouch, Amgen contends that “having two separate and distinct requirement reflects an incoherent textual analysis of the statute,” and given that “both of these doctrines have increasingly focused on ‘full scope’ disclosure . . . [it] makes it virtually impossible to include broad claims.”