Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article predicting how “[t]wo proposed laws affecting patents may come up for vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee after the election”;
- an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s opinions in patent cases in September;
- a blog post highlighting a recent Federal Circuit decision that vacated a “denial of an anti-suit injunction in a major FRAND licensing dispute”; and
- an article reporting how a “federal judge in Minnesota recused himself from a patent case more than five years into proceedings after the Federal Circuit reversed his interpretation of a key patent term.”
Philip Nelson posted an article with Bloomberg Law predicting how “[t]wo proposed laws affecting patents may come up for vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee after the election.” Nelson goes on to discuss the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act and the PREVAIL Act.
Denise De Mory and Li Guo contributed an article to Law360 discussing the Federal Circuit’s opinions in patent cases in September. The authors explain how in September the court “issued 13 written opinions in patent cases,” four of which were reversals. According to the authors, these reversals provide “helpful clarity on collateral estoppel, patent eligibility, construction of claim terms that have different boundaries across different claims, and the role of courts as neutral arbiter[s].”
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO highlighting a recent Federal Circuit decision that vacated a “denial of an anti-suit injunction in a major FRAND licensing dispute.” According to Crouch, in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., the Federal Circuit concluded that “the district court had gone too far by concluding the U.S. case would only be dispositive of the foreign cases if it would result in a global license.” Crouch noted how the court said “the dispositive question to be resolved is ‘whether Ericsson has complied with its good-faith-negotiating obligation’ under its FRAND commitments.” Crouch suggested “[t]he decision provides important guidance on when U.S. courts should issue anti-suit injunctions to prevent SEP holders from enforcing foreign injunctions while FRAND obligations are being adjudicated domestically.”
Michael Shapiro wrote an article for Bloomberg Law reporting how a “federal judge in Minnesota recused himself from a patent case more than five years into proceedings after the Federal Circuit reversed his interpretation of a key patent term.” According to Shapiro, on remand after the Federal Circuit’s decision in Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. the “judge wrote he was ‘puzzled’ by the appellate opinion and ‘at a loss’ for ‘how to reconcile the Federal Circuit’s varying instructions with each other or the facts of the case.'” Shapiro explained how the district judge stated that “the appeals court mischaracterized a key portion of his ruling and provided no help in the form of a substitute interpretation of the patent language.”