This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one precedential order, one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and two errata. In the precedential opinion—which addresses an appeal from a judgment of non-infringement by a district court—the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court incorrectly construed claim terms and thus vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The precedential order admonishes counsel for attempting to incorporate by reference multiple pages of argument from a brief in another case and warns future litigants against doing the same thing. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in a patent and trade dress infringement case. The three nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and precedential order and links to the dismissals and errata.
Promptu Systems Corp. v. Comcast Corp. (Precedential Opinion)
In December 2016, Promptu Systems Corp. filed a complaint against Comcast Corp. in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Comcast had infringed Promptu-owned U.S. Patent Nos. 7,047,196 and 7,260,538 and also asserting infringement of U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,326 and certain state-law bases for relief. In June 2022, before completion of discovery or any summary judgment proceedings, but after the district court adopted claim constructions that largely followed Comcast’s proposals, Promptu and Comcast jointly stipulated to the with-prejudice dismissal of Promptu’s ’326 patent-infringement claim and state-law claims. Based on the set of claim constructions adopted by the district court, Promptu also stipulated to and moved for entry of a final judgment of no infringement by Comcast of the ’196 and ’538 patents. The district court granted Promptu’s request and entered final judgment.
Promptu appeals the judgment, challenging several of the underlying claim constructions. We conclude that the district court incorrectly construed certain claim terms. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Promptu Systems Corp. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Precedential Order)
On January 11, 2024, this Court heard oral argument in four related cases: Promptu Sys. Corp. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, Nos. 19-2368 (consolidated with 19-2369), 20-1253, 22-1093, and 22-1939. Mr. Mark Perry (“Counsel”) of the firm of Weil, Gotshal, & Manges LLP represented Appellee. At oral argument, Counsel was asked to submit a brief within 10 days, no more than 10 pages, to show cause why Counsel/Appellee should not be sanctioned for attempting to incorporate by reference multiple pages of argument from the brief in one case into another.
* * *
Counsel’s position is unreasonable given this Court’s prior opinions. We accept as true Counsel’s argument that he was unaware of this court’s precedential decision in Microsoft in which his own law firm was admonished for exactly the same improper conduct. While we will not award sanctions in this case, future litigants should appreciate that: (1) it is improper to incorporate material from one brief by reference into another unless in compliance with Fed. R. App. P. 28; (2) in no event is such incorporation permitted if it would result in exceeding the applicable word count; and (3) violating these provisions in the future will likely result in sanctions.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Parties may not incorporate by reference arguments into one brief from another unless in compliance with Fed. R. App. P. 28, and in no event is such incorporation permitted if it would result in exceeding the applicable word count.
UATP IP, LLC v. Kangaroo, LLC (Nonprecedential Opinion)
This interlocutory appeal arises from a motion for a preliminary injunction filed below by Appellees UATP IP, LLC and UATP Management, LLC (collectively, UATP) based on alleged patent and trade dress infringement by Kangaroo, LLC (Kangaroo). The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Kangaroo from operating the “Adventure Hub” in its trampoline park, using certain colors, and using UATP’s confidential information. UATP IP, LLC v. Kangaroo, LLC, 2022 WL 2898951, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 28, 2022) (Order). After full briefing and argument, we conclude the district court abused its discretion by failing to make the requisite findings to support its grant of the preliminary injunction. Further, we find that UATP failed to prove in its briefing below that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its patent infringement claim. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction as to the patent infringement claim, and vacate and remand as to the trade dress infringement claim.