Here is an update on activity in patent cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted 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 recent opinions and one recent order, four newly identified cases, and two recent oral arguments. Here are the details.
Opinions and Orders
Since our last update, Federal Circuit panels have issued two opinions and one order in patent cases that attracted amicus briefs.
Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission
In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed Apple’s appeal from a limited exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission barring the importation of Apple Watches found to infringe patents owned by Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Lourie and Reyna, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s judgment. See our opinion summary for more information.
In re Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
In this case, the Federal Circuit denied Volkswagen’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Volkswagen sought to have the Federal Circuit order the United States Patent and Trademark Office to vacate its denial of a request for inter partes review. In the order, a panel of the court consisting of Judges Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes denied the petition. See our order summary for more information.
Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc.
In this case, LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Alabama, Inc. appealed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of eligibility and its order denying judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement and no damages. In an opinion authored by Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas, who sat by designation, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part, affirmed-in-part, and remanded the case. We will release an opinion summary soon.
New Cases
Since our last update, we have identified four patent cases that attracted amicus briefs.
VidStream LLC. v. Twitter Inc.
In this case, Twitter filed an appeal presenting the following questions:
- “Is a patent claim directed to collecting, processing, and outputting a particular kind of video data using generic computer technology unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101?”
- “If a jury finds one claim invalid and a near-identical second claim valid, is the second claim also invalid when it includes only a single unique limitation and it is not disputed that this single limitation is known in the prior art?”
- “Should a damages award be vacated where the district court states that the exclusion of an expert’s damages opinion is “the exception, not the rule,” the underlying expert opinion fails to apportion and is based on documents that lack technical and economic comparability to the asserted patents, and ultimately the jury never hears any testimony about the standalone value of the lone claim it found infringed?”
- “Should a prejudgment interest award be vacated when the plaintiff sought a running royalty, but the district court calculated the award based on an assumption that all royalties have been paid as a lumpsum on the day the infringement began (before plaintiff owned the patent) and continued to accrue over the years the case was stayed?”
Two amicus briefs were filed in support of Twitter and reversal:
- Corrected Amicus Curiae Brief of United Patents, LLC in Support of Twitter Inc. and Reversal of Damages
- Corrected Brief of Askeladden L.L.C. in Support of Twitter and Reversal
RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
In this case, after a motion for summary reversal, several parties filed amicus briefs in support of the appellants and reversal and several parties intervened. The Court denied the motion. Three amicus briefs were filed:
- Brief of Amicus Curiae State of West Virginia in Support of Appellants and Reversal
- Brief of Energy Marketers of America as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellants’ Motion for Summary Reversal
- Brief of Amicus Curiae National Convenience Distributors, LLC in Support of Appellants and Their Motion for Summary Reversal
Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc.
In this case, Splunk filed an appeal presenting the following questions:
- “Whether the district court erred in holding that Cribl’s repeated, ongoing downloading, copying, and executing of the entire copyrighted Splunk Enterprise software to test and troubleshoot Cribl Stream were ‘fair uses’ under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, where these uses were not transformative, were overwhelmingly commercial, and caused market harm to Splunk.”
- “Whether the district court erred in interpreting the SGT and TAP agreements.”
- “Whether remand is warranted to revise the permanent injunction where the district court’s erroneous rulings on fair use and on contract interpretation tainted its injunction analysis.”
- “Whether the district court erred in holding at the pleadings stage that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,762,443 and 10,805,438 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
One amicus brief was filed in support of neither party:
Johns Hopkins University v. Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC
In this case, Johns Hopkins University filed an appeal presenting the following questions:
- “Did the Board err by applying the JHU Inventors’ statutorily-required ClinicalTrials.gov posting as prior art where the posting was made as part of a bona fide effort by the inventors to test the hypothesis underlying their invention and to ascertain whether the invention would work as intended, and where there was no dispute as to the application of the experimental use factors?”
- “Did the Board err in its construction of ‘in response to’ by adopting an analytical framework that does not require finding an express causal relationship between determining a patient’s MSI-H status and treating the patient according to the claimed method?”
- “Did the Board err in its anticipation analysis by finding missing claim limitations, including regarding efficacy and patient characteristics, anticipated, either by explicit or inherent disclosure in the prior art?”
- “Did the Board err in its obviousness determination where it relied on inherency to supply missing claim limitations and failed to evaluate the Graham factors?”
One amicus brief was filed in support of John Hopkins University and reversal:
Oral Arguments
Since our last update two cases that attracted amicus briefs have been argued. They are Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and VLSI Technology LLC v. OpenSky Industries, LLC. We will post argument recaps soon.