This month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Uniloc sued Motorola for infringement of a patent that discloses pairing a telephone with another device and using the other device to make a call. The district court, however, denied Uniloc’s claim, finding that Uniloc did not hold all exclusionary rights to the patent in question for purposes of satisfying the requirement of standing. Uniloc appealed. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Lourie and Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. This is our opinion summary.
This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s determination that a party lacks standing as a matter of collateral estoppel and concludes that the same party has standing in a companion case. Notably, Jude Lourie expressed additional views on the matter. The second opinion comes in another patent case, this one appealed from the Northern District of California. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit explains why it reverses the district court’s determination that a party does not have standing and remands the case. This morning the Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also late yesterday and this morning released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.
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
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion affirms the Board’s refusal to register a stylized form of “.SUCKS” as a trademark. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and it addresses the Board’s determination that claims are invalid for obviousness. The second opinion comes in veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and it addresses the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denial of compensation to a veteran. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the United States Court of International Trade. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in employment and veteran cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims respectively. Finally, the court also issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one precedential opinion in patent case appealed from a district court, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance of a decision by the United State International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions of the opinions and the summary affirmance.
This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential opinions in three patent cases, a trademark case, a veterans case, and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. And the court released five Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a list of the summary affirmances.
- Full Fed. Circ. Won’t Review Motion Sensor Patent Fight – The full Federal Circuit chose not to disturb a panel’s decision to uphold part of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that struck down several claims of a motion sensor patent.
- Good News/Bad News: Patent Owners and Petitioners Both Make Gains in CAFC Uniloc Decision – Experts analyze the effects of the Federal Circuit’s recent Uniloc 2017 v. Facebook Inc. decision that raised numerous estoppel issues.
Here’s the latest.