Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about the Federal Circuit allowing Chief U.S. Judge Colm Connolly of the District of Delaware to “inquire into compliance with his standing orders into ownership transparency” in patent cases;
- another article about the Federal Circuit denying a motion to enjoin a litigant “from commercially marketing generic versions of [a] sleep disorder drug”; and
- a third article about a Federal Circuit decision regarding whether under a pretrial discovery order in a patent case is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
Scott Graham wrote an article for Law.com about the Federal Circuit allowing Chief U.S. Judge Colm Connolly of the District of Delaware to “inquire into compliance with his standing orders into ownership transparency” in patent cases. Graham explained how “the latest mandamus challenge [came] from limited liability companies apparently linked to IP monetization company IP Edge and consultant Mavexar LLC.” Graham reported that the Federal Circuit’s decision has potentially larger implications for VLSI, who “tried last week to blunt Connolly’s inquiry into its own financing by stipulating to dismissal of VLSI’s Delaware litigation against Intel Corp.”
Jasmin Jackson wrote an article for Law360 about the Federal Circuit denying a motion to enjoin Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Apotex Corp “from commercially marketing generic versions of sleep disorder drug Hetlioz.” Jackson reported how Vanda Pharmacueticals Inc. “asked the Federal Circuit last month to block the competing generics pending its appeal of a Delaware federal court decision.” Jackson explained that a prior Delaware federal court decision had “invalidated four patents that [Vanda] had asserted against Teva and Apotex in infringement litigation over Hetlioz.”
Kelcee Griffis authored an article for Bloomberg Law about how the Federal Circuit concluded that “[a] decision preventing an opposing attorney from accessing Alaska Airlines’ confidential information does not count as a final disposition in a patent case.” Griffis reported how the Federal Circuit reasoned that “’pretrial discovery orders . . . are not appealable under the collateral order doctrine.”