Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing how recently “the Federal Circuit denied a petition for mandamus relief from an order transferring a first-filed declaratory judgment action”;
- another article explaining how “AstraZeneca has urged the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to revisit a split panel decision”;
- another article detailing how a “Federal Circuit judge said Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court justices created ‘a trap for the unwary’ by keeping alive a doctrine barring inventors from challenging the validity of their own patents”; and
- yet another article assessing how the Federal Circuit recently “address[ed] [the] ‘abuse of authority’ standard under [federal] whistleblower law.”
Tessa Kroll filed an article with The National Law Review discussing how, in In re Amperex Technology Ltd., “the Federal Circuit denied a petition for mandamus relief from an order transferring a first-filed declaratory judgment action from the District of New Jersey to the Western District of Texas.” Kroll noted that the Federal Circuit found “that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing from the first-to-file rule.”
Muireann Bolger published an article for Life Sciences IP Review explaining how “AstraZeneca has urged the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to revisit a split panel decision that breathed new life into Mylan’s bid to produce a generic version of the asthma inhaler, Symbicort Turbohaler.”
Britain Eakin authored a post for Law360 detailing how, in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a “Federal Circuit judge said . . . the U.S. Supreme Court justices created ‘a trap for the unwary’ by keeping alive a doctrine barring inventors from challenging the validity of their own patents and narrowing when it can be applied, while weighing a remand order from the high court in a patent validity dispute between Minerva and Hologic.”
FEDweek published an article highlighting how, in Smolinski v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Circuit “address[ed] [the] ‘abuse of authority’ standard under [federal] whistleblower law.” More specifically, FEDweek discussed how the Federal Circuit “addressed the standards for what types of disclosures by federal employees qualify for protection against retaliation, saying an ‘abuse of authority’ includes ‘bullying’ behavior.”