Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post explaining how a company that was “denied institution on three inter partes review (IPR) petitions . . . could not simply ‘repackage’ arguments raised in its IPR petition to challenge the same patent via ex parte reexamination”;
- an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit keeps on laying down rules of the road for U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas when it comes to transferring cases to California”;
- a post discussing whether a recent Federal Circuit opinion “may be hinting that willful blindness isn’t enough, by itself, for willful [patent] infringement”; and
- another blog post noting tension between how the Federal Circuit reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and its own practice with respect to Rule 36 summary affirmances.
Eileen McDermott posted on IPWatchdog about In re Vivint, Inc., a precedential opinion focused on how a company that was “denied institution on three inter partes review (IPR) petitions . . . could not simply ‘repackage’ arguments raised in its IPR petition to challenge the same patent via ex parte reexamination.” McDermott emphasized how the Federal Circuit explained that “it was ‘arbitrary and capricious’ and an abuse of discretion for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to grant the reexamination request after it had denied the IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).”
Scott Graham filed an article with Law.com discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit keeps on laying down rules of the road for U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas when it comes to transferring cases to California.” Graham explained that four recent orders “confirm that ‘the outcomes of 1404(a) analyses are highly fact-specific, and the Federal Circuit is paying very close attention to how Judge Albright conducts those analyses.'”
Thomas F. Cotter authored a blog post for Comparative Patent Remedies assessing the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential opinion in SRI International, Inc.v. Cisco Systems Inc. addressing willful patent infringement. Cotter discussed “whether a finding of willful blindness, which can count as ‘actual knowledge’ for purposes of determining liability for induced infringement, is also sufficient for purposes of finding willful infringement.”
Bill Vobach wrote a post for 717 Madison Place highlighting how it is “kind of interesting to compare the recent statement in Trust ID v. Next Caller by the Federal Circuit . . . with the Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 practice. Vobach highlighted how the Federal Circuit explained its requirement that the “[Patent Trial and Appeal] Board is obligated to provide an administrative record showing the evidence on which the findings are based, accompanied by the agency’s reasoning in reaching its conclusions.”