FedCircuitBlog

This week we are previewing three arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit. We are previewing these arguments because the underlying cases attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., in which Cisco appeals a finding that it infringed four patents held by Centripetal Networks, resulting in a judgement of over $2.75 billion. An amicus brief was filed by High Tech Inventors Alliance in support of Cisco. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in an Equal Access to Justice Act case and two in patent cases raising questions related to eligibility and enhanced damages; members of Congress filed an amicus brief in an employment law case that involves interpretation of the Reservists Pay Security Act; the government submitted a brief in opposition in a case concerning the Tucker Act and another brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the non-obviousness requirement; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied review in four cases. Here are the details.

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

• an article explaining how “Zaxcom has petitioned the court for rehearing en banc, arguing that the CAFC’s precedent . . . ‘confused the law’ regarding a rebuttable presumption of nexus”;
• another article discussing how “[a] split US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that US chemical company BASF is able to be sued” for alleged infringement; and
• a blog post discussing how, “[i]n a new petition for writ of certiorari, Cisco asks for guidance on whether enhanced damages under Section 284 require ‘egregious infringement behavior’ or instead is it enough to find ‘deliberate or intentional infringement.’”

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight three opinions: the first in a death benefit case addressing a former spouse’s annuity, the second in a patent case, and a consolidated cases regarding the Tucker Act. We also highlight reply briefs in three patent cases, and an argument recap in a patent case that attracted two amicus briefs. Here are the details.

Guest Post by Greg Reilly

For over a decade, patent litigation has been surprisingly concentrated in a single federal district court. At one time, almost half of the nation’s patent litigation occurred in small towns in eastern Texas.1 Now, 20% of patent litigation occurs before a single judge based in Waco, Texas.2 This concentration of patent litigation is not the result of the inherent characteristics of these districts but instead of the affirmative efforts of particular judges to attract patent cases to their courthouses.3 Scholarly commentary of this forum selling and patent litigation concentration, including by myself, has been largely critical.4 The primary objection is that the districts and judges competing for patent litigation improperly skew procedures in favor of the patentees who make the forum choice.5

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update the court denied a petition that raised a question related to the standard for enhanced damages. That’s it. Here are the details.

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

• an article explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit is poised to provide guidance in the coming year on two patent law issues that have befuddled district courts”;
• another article detailing how “the Federal Circuit (CAFC) . . . affirmed a district court’s ruling that Novartis’ U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 is not invalid” over a dissent by Chief Judge Moore;
• an article detailing how the Federal Circuit “denied Cisco’s bid to rehear a panel decision reinstating a $57 million enhanced damages award against . . . SRI International Inc. over cybersecurity patents”; and
• another article noting that the Federal Circuit “was the first federal appeals court to announce a switch to remote oral arguments for its January session in response to the spike in COVID-19 cases.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new amicus brief supporting rehearing in a case that raises a question related to the standard for enhanced damages. The court also denied a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief and the court scheduled the oral argument to occur in February. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. As for petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received two new petitions raising questions relating to the standard for enhanced damages and the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. The court also received responses to two petitions raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and the notice required to collect damages for infringement. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to the interpretation of a forum selection clause, a writ of mandamus, and comparable licenses and royalty calculations, and another petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

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

• an article detailing the Federal Circuit’s grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus “[i]n its latest rebuke of Judge Alan Albright’s approach to motions to transfer cases out of his court”;
• another article focusing on how the Federal Circuit ruled that a “suit alleging that a Fujifilm subsidiary infringed its patent on an interface for digital mammography” may proceed;
• a blog post discussing how “[w]illful patent infringement can result in enhanced, and in some case treble, damages but not in every instance”; and
• another article noting that the Federal Circuit “affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction that would have forced the accused infringer to seek dismissal of its petitions for inter partes review.”