This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. The opinion addressed whether a patentee’s arguments during reexamination before the Patent and Trademark Office narrowed the scope of claims and nullified a prior district court judgment of infringement. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented in part. Here is the introduction to the majority opinion and dissenting opinion.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Little Tucker Act case; four nonprecedential opinions in a case concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, an MSPB case, a veterans case, and a patent case; and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.
Once a month we provide an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. Today we highlight recent activity in six such cases. We introduced four of these cases last month in a previous blog post. Of the two new cases, one concerns an attempt to vacate a judgment of non-infringement of a patent in favor of a settlement agreement, and the other questions whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider eligibility challenges to amended patent claims filed in inter partes review proceedings.
Settlement Leaves Important Question Unanswered – Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc.
An interesting case that was set to be argued this week involved Power Integrations, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. This case presented the question of whether foreign lost profits may be recovered when patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)—that is, for direct patent infringement, which requires that the infringement occur within the United States. This case—involving a rare interlocutory appeal—was one of only two cases set to be argued this month that included an amicus brief. The parties, however, settled the case and the Federal Circuit granted a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. Thus, while this blog post ordinarily would have been a recap of the oral argument, instead we are limited to analyzing the briefing in the case, highlighting the lingering question the case presented and the parties’ arguments on point.
This week the Federal Circuit will hold 15 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 54 cases. One notable case being argued is Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company. It is the only case with an amicus brief being argued this month. As we previously reported, another case with an amicus brief that had been scheduled for oral argument this week—Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International—settled.
One type of case we track here at Fed Circuit Blog is any patent case pending before a panel where an amicus brief has been filed. Besides identifying these cases, aggregating related data (e.g., briefs, oral argument recordings, orders, and opinions), and making this data available using our “Other Cases” page, once a month we plan to provide a blog post summarizing recent activity in these cases. Today we do that with respect to eight such patent cases. Of these cases, three concern the non-obviousness requirement; two include jurisdictional questions; one pertains to infringement; one discusses F/RAND commitments; and one raises the issue of patent eligibility.
Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report covers an article discussing a $175 million settlement between ON Semiconductor and Power Integrations, a comment on an amicus brief in support of the University of Minnesota’s petition for certiorari, and a discussion of a recent supplemental brief filed by Google supporting its own petition for certiorari and responding to the Solicitor General’s brief recommending the Supreme Court deny review in its case.