FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion yesterday in Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., a Lanham Act case that we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for Crocs against Dawgs’ counterclaim alleging false advertising violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Crocs based on Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent it interpreted as legally barring Dawgs’ counterclaim. The Federal Circuit, however, reversed and remanded the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Reyna that was joined by Judge Cunningham and Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas, who sat by designation. This is our opinion summary.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing the presentation of an “annual Pauline Newman Award” by IPWatchdog that included a discussion involving former Federal Circuit Judge Paul Michel and Judge Newman;
• an article discussing the Federal CIrcuit’s recent decision to revive “a footwear company’s claim accusing Crocs Inc. of making misleading promotional statements about ‘patented’ foam material”; and
• a blog post suggesting another recent Federal Circuit decision “underscores the high evidentiary bar patentees must clear to invoke the entire market value rule, especially for complex, multi-component products.”

As we have highlighted this week, three cases scheduled to be argued in October at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission. In this case, US Synthetic appeals a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found patent claims invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a patent case decided by the District of Colorado. Notably, the Federal Circuit held “that a cause of action arises” under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act “where a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature and advertises that product feature in a manner that causes consumers to be misled about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its product.” The three orders are all dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Today the Federal Circuit announced that Chief Judge Moore appointed four people to three-year terms on the Federal Circuit’s Advisory Council. Two of the appointees are new to the Council: Jeremiah Helm, a Partner at Knobbe Martens whose practice focuses on patent litigation and appellate practice, and Patrick Keane, a Shareholder at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney whose practice focuses on intellectual property licensing, litigation, appeals, inter partes and post grant reviews, and development of intellectual property portfolios. Helm clerked for Chief Judge Moore, and Kean is Immediate Past-President of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. The other two appointees have previously served on the Council: Mel Bostwick, a Partner at Orrick whose practice focuses on patent appeals before the Federal Circuit, and Goutam Patnaik, a Partner at Desmarais whose practice focuses on investigations at the International Trade Commission and litigation in key patent venues. Bostwick clerked for Judge Dyk, while Patnaik is a past president of the International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association. Here is the full text of today’s announcement with a link to more information.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order voluntarily dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion that affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and remands for further proceedings a patent case appealed from the Western District of Missouri. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a grant of en banc rehearing to address a damages experts’ reliance on comparable licenses. In addition, three new petitions raise questions concerning inducement of infringement and skinny-labeling, the effect of a remand overturning a holding on which Patent Owner relied in drafting its amended claims, the written description requirement, and obvious-type double patenting. Related to these new petitions, we also report on a new response, a new reply, and three new amicus briefs. Here are the details.

As we mentioned on Monday, three cases scheduled to be argued in October at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. In this case, Lynk Labs appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding finding all challenged patent claims unpatentable. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. The first transfers a case to the District of Nevada unless, within 30 days from the date of entry of the order, a party files a notice with the court that she has made a filing in the district court case affirmatively dismissing any claims overlapping with this matter. The second denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Eastern District of Texas to transfer a case to the Central District of California. The other two orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the first two orders and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article reporting how “Congressional hearings scheduled for [last] Thursday to mark up several bills related to patents . . . have been postponed until after Election Day due to the Senate’s adjournment”;
• an article outlining “trends that practitioners, particularly litigators, would be wise to pay close attention to” related to eligibility and software patents; and
• a blog post reporting on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s announcement that there was “a significant error in its patent term adjustment (PTA) calculations, potentially affecting patents issued between March 19, 2024, and July 30, 2024.”