Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post about the Federal Circuit granting a petition for writ of mandamus to transfer claims from the Western District of Texas to the District of Colorado;
- an article about the California Institute of Technology urging the Supreme Court “not to take up a $1.1 billion patent infringement dispute between the university and Apple”; and
- another article about the Federal Circuit denying a “motion to stop . . . performance of a $133 million US Navy base operations support services contract.”
Eileen McDermott wrote a blog post for IPWatchdog about how the Federal Circuit granted a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Amazon, Inc. McDermott explained how the writ of mandamus directed Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas “to sever claims brought by Flygrip, Inc. against claims made against another defendant and to transfer the case to a Colorado district court.” McDermott reported how Judge Albright had refused to sever the claims because the defendant “was not a peripheral party to the litigation.”
Jasmin Jackson authored an article for Law360 about how the California Institute of Technology urged the Supreme Court “not to take up a $1.1 billion patent infringement dispute between the university and Apple.” Jackson reported how in this case, Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology, Caltech is “arguing that the Federal Circuit correctly applied an estoppel provision that blocks certain invalidity agreements in district court litigation.”
Daniel Seiden authored an article for Bloomberg Law about the Federal Circuit denying Newimar S.A.’s “motion to stop J&J Maintenance Inc’s performance of a $133 million US Navy base operations support services contract.” Seiden explained how “Newimar didn’t show that the risk that it or other parties will suffer irreparable harm favors an injunction.” Seiden further reported that this appeal follows the Navy not extending Newimar’s bridge contract and, instead, instructing Newimar to “commence phase-out activities consistent with transferring work under the contract to J&J.”