The Briefing – Late Night, Early Dismissal: The Santos-Kimmel Copyright Case
(Podcast) The Briefing – Late Night, Early Dismissal: The Santos-Kimmel Copyright Case
Fifth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Striking of Class Allegations
Eighth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Putative Class Claims
Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
Class Action Suit Against Instagram for New Terms of Service Dismissed
Before Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Standing based on potential infringement liability requires concrete plans for future activity which will create a substantial risk of future infringement...more
The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a final written decision in an IPR based on issue preclusion where a district court had dismissed a complaint finding the patent claims subject-matter ineligible. The patentee had...more
Before Hughes, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Filing an amended complaint does not nullify a dismissal order that was not later...more
Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-2367, -2368, 2024-1016, -1017 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2024) Our case of the week focuses on the inherent power of the district courts to investigate fraud and...more
In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., No. 21-1985 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2023), the case addresses the interplay between findings related to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success in determining...more
The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an unsuccessful challenger in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding based on failure to satisfy the standing requirements for appeal in Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v....more
Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC, Appeal No. 2022-1706 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 7, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit dismissed appellant Allgenesis’s appeal of an inter...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) after analyzing the public disclosure bar channels. The case required the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld an attorneys’ fees award after the patent owner brought successive patent infringement suits attempting “to refile to wipe the slate clean” after the first court was...more
Referencing the use of antecedents from a “wherein” clause, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s claim construction and vacated its summary judgment ruling of indefiniteness that relied...more
Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-1759 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2022) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit Court addressed the third appeal from an underlying inter...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a bright-line rule that patent infringement notice letters and related communications can never form the basis for specific personal jurisdiction. Apple Inc. v. Zipit...more
In re: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and In re: Hyundai Motor America, Appeal Nos. 2022-108, -109 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2022) - In the most recent of multiple mandamus rulings issued by the Federal Circuit in relation to...more
Mylan appealed from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) discretionary denial of institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The Board declined to institute Mylan’s IPR under NHK-Fintiv, a multi-factor analysis...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
Biogen International GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1933 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2021) - For the second time in two weeks, our Case of the Week focuses on the written description requirement, in...more
University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2243 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed an inter partes review decision finding claims directed to...more
In reviewing whether the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) correctly interpreted the meaning of “intercepting” in the context of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
Security People lost an inter partes review (IPR) and appealed to the Federal Circuit. It lost that appeal and was denied certiorari at the Supreme Court. Security People never raised constitutional arguments in any of these...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
General Electric Co. v. Raytheon Techs. Corp., Appeal No. 2019-1319 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2020) - In one of two precedential opinions this week, the Federal Circuit established new precedent concerning what it takes for a...more
C.R. Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1756, -1934 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020) - Our Case of the Week is one of two cases decided this week in which the Federal Circuit finds that a district court jumped the...more
SECURITY PEOPLE, INC. v. IANCU - Before Lourie, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California - Summary: Congress foreclosed the possibility of...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Security People, Inc. v. Iancu, Appeal No. 2019-2118 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week deals with whether a party can challenge the outcome of an inter partes review...more
The Federal Circuit continued its explication of the standing issue for unsuccessful petitioners in inter partes review (see "Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2020)") in Pfizer Inc. v....more