Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about how “[a] Federal Circuit panel on Tuesday went in circles trying to lock down how a party can disavow part of an exhibit attached to its complaint”;
- another article about the Federal Circuit holding “raised tariffs on imports of steel derivatives such as nails and fasteners didn’t exceed the scope of the president’s authority”; and
- a third article about “[c]hipmaking giant Intel Corp. . . . settl[ing] a patent lawsuit brought by wireless technology developer ParkerVision Inc.”
Dani Kass wrote an article for Law360 about how “[a] Federal Circuit panel on Tuesday went in circles trying to lock down how a party can disavow part of an exhibit attached to its complaint.” Kass reported on how the Federal Circuit panel addressed “what [a party] would have needed to say to stop the court from using its own exhibit to refute the allegations and dismiss the case.” Kass explained how “HCM is arguing Philip Morris’ e-cigarettes are combustible, but Philip Morris says HCM’s exhibit explicitly states they’re not.”
Peter Hayes authored an article for Bloomberg Law about the Federal Circuit holding “raised tariffs on imports of steel derivatives such as nails and fasteners didn’t exceed the scope of the president’s authority.” Hayes reported how the relevant proclamation was valid because “[t]he government had the authority, under § 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to issue Proclamation 9980, as an adjustment to tariffs imposed on ‘steel articles.’”
Blake Brittain wrote an article for Reuters about “[c]hipmaking giant Intel Corp. . . . settl[ing] a patent lawsuit brought by wireless technology developer ParkerVision Inc. on the second day of a West Texas jury trial in the case.” Brittain explained how “[a] ParkerVision filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday said it would receive $25 million in a settlement that also includes a patent licensing agreement.” Brittain also reported how, in the case, ParkerVision accused Intel of “infringing several patents related to improved radio-frequency receivers” and arguing the relevant technology was “used in Intel’s wireless chips in the mid-1990s.”