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 “requirements for transparency regarding litigation funding and company and/or patent ownership” in the District of Delaware;
- an article about overcoming dismissals under Section 101 of the Patent Act; and
- another article about the Federal Circuit’s decision “reject[ing] a tech company’s bid to transfer a patent case it is facing out of . . . Waco.”
Stephanie Smiertka Riley wrote a blogpost for IPWatchdog about “requirements for transparency regarding litigation funding and company and/or patent ownership” in the District of Delaware. Riley explained that these requirements include “heightened Rule 7.1 disclosures and disclosures of third-party litigation funding.” Riley reported how the “fervent enforcement of those requirements has prompted a writ of mandamus and potential review by the Federal Circuit.”
Mark Lezama authored an article for Bloomberg Law about overcoming dismissals under Section 101 of the Patent Act. Lezama summarized that “over the past four years many patent owners have been unable to plausibly plead factual allegations showing their patent has an inventive concept,” which is the second step of the Section 101 test developed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. Lezama suggested the Federal Circuit recent decision in Cooperative Entertainment Inc. v. Kollective Technology Inc. has offered guidance given that the Federal Circuit found “the patent holder had alleged an inventive concept sufficiently plausibly to preclude dismissal at the pleading stage.”
Andrew Karpan wrote an article for Law360 about the Federal Circuit’s decision “reject[ing] a tech company’s bid to transfer a patent case it is facing out of . . . Waco.” Karpan reported how in In re CloudFlare Inc. the Federal Circuit agreed with Judge Alan Albright that CloudFlare had “’failed to show that the transferee forum was clearly more convenient.’” Karpan explained how CloudFlare, “unsuccessfully, sought to get the lawsuit out of Judge Albright’s vast and widely criticized patent docket in Texas.”