Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight two new opinions. One comes in a government contract case raising questions related to breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and recovery of certain termination-for-convenience damages. The other comes in a patent case raising questions related the propriety of an antisuit injunction. The other update is new briefing in another patent case raising questions related to whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment of patent eligibility, noninfringement, and denial of damages. Here are the details.
New Opinions
Since our last update, the Federal Circuit has issued two opinions in cases attracting amicus briefs.
ACLR, LLC v. United States
In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a grant of summary judgment by the Court of Federal Claims on ACLR’s claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and recovery of certain termination-for-convenience damages. The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government based on ACLR’s purported failure to keep records sufficient to establish costs it was seeking to recover as damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Stark that was joined by Judge Prost and Judge Hughes. It held that the government’s termination of two audits was not a breach of contract, but instead a constructive termination for convenience, precluding ACLR from recovery of its contingency fee, legal fees, and other costs. See our opinion summary for more details.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.
In this patent case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s denial of an antisuit injunction sought by Lenovo against Ericsson. Lenovo sought to prevent Ericsson from enforcing injunctions it was awarded in Colombian and Brazilian cases preventing Lenovo from infringing Ericsson’s patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Lourie and Reyna, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s denial and remanded the case for further proceedings. It held that the dispositive requirement of the foreign-antisuit-injunction framework was met because the contract in question obligated the parties to negotiate in good faith before pursuing injunctive relief based on a standard essential patent. See our opinion summary for more details.
New Briefing
Since our last update, new briefing was filed in one of the cases that we have been tracking.
Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc.
In this patent case, LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Alabama, Inc. appeal a district court’s grant of summary judgment of eligibility and its order denying judgment as a matter of law on noninfringement and no damages. In their opening brief, they argue that “Constellation’s four patents asserted against LG are ineligible under §101, and Constellation failed to show infringement of those patents.” They contend that “the District Court ignored precedent holding that amorphous optimization, unbound by any specific requirement, is an ineligible abstract idea.” As to LG’s infringement claim, they argue that “Constellation violated Fujitsu and its progeny by presenting a mix-and-match infringement case, using evidence about an industry standard . . . for at least one limitation of each asserted claim.”
Since our last report, Constellation Designs filed its response brief. In it, Constellation Designs argues the district court “correctly held that the asserted claims are patent eligible under both” of the required steps. It says “[t]he claims provide a concrete improvement to digital-communications technology,” which produce “benefits that were not possible using earlier technologies.” It further contends that, “[e]ven if the patents are directed to abstract ideas, the innovative way of constructing non-uniform constellations disclosed by the claim is eligible for patent protection.” Additionally, it argues, “[t]he jury’s finding that LG infringed the asserted patents is supported by substantial evidence” and Federal Circuit precedent “do[es] not prevent a plaintiff from using a standard alongside other evidence of infringement.”