On December 7, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the decision of the District Court of Delaware, which found non-infringement by Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lupin”) and other defendants of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,278,096 and 9,125,910 (’096 and ’910 patents, respectively), and infringement by Lupin of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,101,626 (’626 patent). All three patents are owned by H Lundbeck A/S (“Lundbeck”).

On November 21, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) finding claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,693,961 (“’961 patent”) unpatentable for lack of written description and anticipation.

On November 17, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) finding unpatentable the challenged claims of a patent directed to methods for making semiconductor devices. Bell Semiconductor LLC v. Advanced Semiconductor Eng’g, Inc., __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2023).

On November 3, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed an award of $5.2 million in attorneys’ fees entered against PersonalWeb Technologies LLC under 35 U.S.C. § 285.  In re PersonalWeb Techs. LLC, Nos. 2021-1858, 2021-1859, 2021-1860 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3, 2023).  The court (Reyna, Dyk, and Lourie) reviewed the district court’s exceptional case determination and fee calculation for abuse of discretion.

On October 25, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed two final written decisions from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), determining that appellant IPR petitioner did not meet its burden of proving unpatentability.  Netflix Inc. v. DivX LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. October 25, 2023).  In its precedential decision, the CAFC found no error in how the PTAB understood appellant’s petition arguments and further found that certain other arguments newly raised by appellant on appeal had been forfeited.

On October 6, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the Western District of Texas’s holding of indefiniteness as to certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,751,585 (the “’585 Patent”).  WSOU Investments LLC (“WSOU”) accused Google LLC (“Google”) of infringing independent claim 9, and claims 10-16 dependent therefrom, of the ’585 Patent.  The ’585 Patent is directed to a management method for electronic messages in a user’s inbox in a communication system.  The district court construed the limitation, “a collaborative application management processor configured to manage collaborative application,” to be indefinite as a means-plus-function limitation without sufficient corresponding structure.

On October 16, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion that (i) reversed the District Court for the Northern District of California’s pre-verdict judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of nonobviousness, (ii) affirmed the district court’s decision to deny defendant’s pre-verdict and post-trial motions for JMOL regarding noninfringement, (iii) reversed the district court’s denial of defendant’s pre and post-trial motions to exclude the testimony of patent owner’s damages expert, (iv) vacated the lost profits award, and (v) remanded the case for further consistent proceedings.  Cyntec Co. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., No. 2022-1873, --F.4th.--, 2023 WL 6798376 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023).

On October 19, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion that reversed-in-part, vacated, and remanded the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision that the prior art, including Claire Simonnet & Alex Groisman, High-Throughput and High-Resolution Flow Cytometry in Molded Microfluidic Devices, 78 Analytical Chemistry 5653 (2006) (“Simonnet”), did not render unpatentable Appellee Cytonome/ST, LLC’s (“Cytonome”) U.S. Patent No. 10,583,439 (the “’439 patent”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.  ABS Glob., Inc. v. Cytonome/St, LLC, No. 2022-1761, 2023 WL 6885009 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2023).

On September 1, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion upholding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) (i) construction of the claim term “connection rejection message” as having its plain and ordinary meaning; (ii) finding that the proposed substitute independent claim was impermissibly broader than the original claim; and (iii) finding that the proposed substitute claims that were dependent on the impermissible independent claim were also impermissibly broadened.  Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., No. 2022-1387, -- F.4th --, 2023 WL 5659063 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2023).

On September 11, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion, vacating the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision that the prior art, including U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 (“Parulski”), did not render unpatentable Appellee Corephotonics, Ltd.’s (“Corephotonics”) U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 (the “’479 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.  Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., No. 2022-1350, 2023 WL 5838695 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2023).

On September 20, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Case No. 1:17-cv-00509-TBD, Judge Timothy B. Dyk, finding claims of asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,033,590 (“the ’590 patent”) invalid for lack of enablement.  Baxalta Inc. et al. v. Genentech Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. September 20, 2023).  In its precedential decision, the CAFC held that the asserted claims are indistinguishable from those recently found invalid by the Supreme Court in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594, 610–12 (2023).

On September 21, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), holding that claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,648 (the “’648 patent”) owned by Elekta Limited (“Elekta”) were unpatentable as obvious.  Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., No. 2021-1985 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2023).  The CAFC panel (Reyna, Stoll and Stark) reviewed the PTAB’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.  In affirming the PTAB, the CAFC concluded that the PTAB’s factual findings as to both the motivation to combine prior art references and the reasonable expectation of success in making the combination were supported by substantial evidence.

On September 28, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding unpatentable the challenged claims of a patent directed to an adaptive alarm system, used in combination with pulse oximetry sensors, for medical applications. Masimo Corp. v. Sotera Wireless, Inc., F.4th (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2023).

USC IP Partnership, L.P. (“USC”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook, Inc., succeeded by Meta Platforms, Inc. (collectively, “Meta”), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.  USC accused Meta’s “News Feed” feature of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,645,300 (“the ’300 Patent”).  The ’300 Patent claims a method for predicting which webpages to recommend to a web visitor based on inferences of the visitor’s intent by using an “intent engine.”  Meta moved for summary judgment of invalidity of all claims of the ’300 Patent on the ground that they are ineligible for patenting, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  A week before trial was scheduled, Judge Alan Albright granted summary judgment.  USC IP P’ship, L.P. v. Facebook, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 3d 446 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (“Dist. Ct. Order”).

On August 7, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed in part a decision by the Northern District of Illinois, holding that an agreed forum selection clause applies only to the parties to the agreement and cannot be invoked by a co-defendant that did not have a similar agreement.  Nulogy Corp. v. Menasha Packaging Co., LLC, No. 22-1583, 2023 WL 5010784, at *1 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023).  The Court reviewed the district court’s threshold determinations regarding the forum selection clause de novo.

On July 24, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Case No. 1:20-cv-00755-RGA-JLH, Judge Richard G. Andrews, finding claims of one asserted patent valid and infringed and claims of another asserted patent anticipated but otherwise infringed.  United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2023).  In its precedential decision, the CAFC held, inter alia, that the district court did not err in declining to import safety and efficacy limitations into method of treatment claims in the first patent, and also did not err in finding that a decision of unpatentability by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, currently on appeal, did not bar liability for induced infringement.

On July 14, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) issued an opinion, affirming the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “district court” or “Central District of California”) that U.S. Patent Nos. 9,087,321 (the “’321 patent”) and 10,936,685 (the “’685 patent”), (collectively, the “asserted patents”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., No. 2022-1308, 2023 WL 4536366 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023).

Medtronic, Inc., asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,626,314 and 8,036,756 against Axonics, Inc., in a patent infringement lawsuit.  In response, Axonics challenged various claims of the Medtronic patents for obviousness in inter partes reviews (IPRs).  In both IPRs, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Axonics had failed to prove any of the challenged claims unpatentable.  Axonics appealed.  On July 10, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating the Board’s final written decisions in both IPRs.

On July 14, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), holding that a patent that has only ever contained claims with an effective filing date that postdates the effective date of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) may not be subject to an interference—even if the allegedly interfering patent has a priority date prior to the AIA.  SNIPR Technologies Limited v. Rockefeller University, No. 2022-1260, -- F.4th --, 2023 WL 4536369 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023).

On July 5, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin’s decision dismissing—on the basis of res judicata—the induced infringement suit of Appellant, Inguran, LLC (“Inguran”). Inguran, LLC v. ABS Global, Inc., __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2023).

On June 21, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Case No. 6:21-cv-01366-PGB-DCI, Judge Paul G. Byron, dismissing plaintiff’s patent infringement suit.  Yoldas Askan v. Faro Techs., Inc.,__F.3d__(Fed. Cir. June 21, 2023).  In its order, the CAFC held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case as a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with a discovery order and as precluded under the Kessler doctrine, under which “an adjudged non-infringer” can “avoid repeated harassment for continuing its business as usual post-final judgment in a patent action where circumstances justify that result.”

On June 27, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), holding that proposed substitute claims were not patentable for lack of written description and lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112.  Medytox, Inc., v. Galderma S.A., No. 2022-1165 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2023).  The CAFC panel (Dyk, Reyna, and Stark) reviewed the PTAB’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.  In affirming the PTAB, the CAFC concluded that the substitute claims were not enabled because a skilled artisan would not have been able “to make and use all of what is claimed.”

The PTAB recently released public versions of earlier decisions about the implications of Unified Patents’ business model and when the PTAB should decide disputes about identification of real parties in interest (“RPIs”).  On March 8, 2023, the PTAB issued a determination that Unified Patents should have identified its members Apple and Samsung as RPIs in its IPR challenge of MemoryWeb’s patent, which had been asserted against those members.  Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Paper 56 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8 2023).  On May 16, 2023, USPTO Director Vidal granted director review of the decision and vacated the RPI determination, finding it had been unnecessary to resolve the proceeding.  Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Paper 76 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2023).

On May 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) issued an opinion affirming the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision that U.S. Patent 7,736,355 to Itou, et al. (“Itou”) could not be used as prior art to invalidate five Teleflex Innovations S.à.R.L. (“Teleflex”) patents, which were on appeal.  Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.à.R.L., No. 2021-2356, 2023 WL 3606143 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2023).

On May 9, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the unpatentability decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), finding, with respect to the independent claims, that the Board either did not misconstrue the claims or that any error with respect to the Board’s claim construction was harmless.  With respect to the dependent claims, the CAFC found that there was a sufficient motivation to combine the asserted prior art references.  Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, No. 2022-1291, -- F.4th --, 2023 WL 3311550 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2023).

On April 12, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Case No. 1:19-cv-00474-KAJ, Judge Kent A. Jordan, invalidating asserted claims of plaintiff’s ’589 patent as obvious. UCB Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023). In its order affirming invalidity, the CAFC affirmed the district court’s holding of invalidity for obviousness but found legal error in the district court’s anticipation holding because it misapplied the CAFC’s decision in Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

On April 18, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed a decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas holding that certain claims of three reissued U.S. patents were not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 251. Cioffi v. Google LLC, No. 2018-1049 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2023). The CAFC panel (Reyna, Bryson, and Taranto) reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and reversed the district court, concluding that the asserted claims failed to satisfy the “original patent” requirement.

On April 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) finding that Leica Microsystems, Inc. (“Leica”) failed to show that the claims of a patent directed to a fluorescence detection system were unpatentable as obvious. Leica Microsystems, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Michigan, Appeal No. 22-1445 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2023).

Canopy Growth Corp. (“Canopy”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against GW Pharma Ltd. and GW Research Ltd. (collectively, “GW”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Judge Alan Albright issued an order construing the sole disputed claim limitation: “CO2 in liquefied form under subcritical pressure and temperature conditions.” Based on the issued claim construction order, the parties stipulated to non-infringement, and the court entered final judgment in favor of GW as to infringement and dismissed GW’s remaining affirmative defenses and counterclaims without prejudice. Canopy appealed the court’s claim construction. On April 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming Judge Albright’s claim construction and the entry of final judgment of non-infringement.

On March 22, 2023, Circuit Judge Bryson, as visiting judge in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, ruled on competing motions about the next steps in a case where the patent plaintiff’s damages theories, as set forth in expert reports, had been repeatedly rejected by Delaware District Court judge Andrews. Judge Bryson allowed the case to proceed to trial, albeit with a very limited damages case. Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., C.A. No. 16-453-WCB (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2023).

On April 5, 2023, in a precedential order, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Eastern District of Texas’s claim construction of U.S. Patent No. 5,802,467 (the “’467 patent”), as well as the jury’s corresponding finding of non-infringement. Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2021-2320 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2023).

On February 21, 2023, Magistrate Judge Aaron of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recommended that the District Court grant defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss patent claims, finding that the claims of the asserted patent were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.  Stylitics, Inc. v. Findmine, Inc., Case No. 1-22-cv-02983 (S.D.N.Y. February 21, 2023).

​On March 13, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.) dismissing as unreviewable a lawsuit challenging the instructions of the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) regarding the standard for discretionary denial of petitions for inter partes review (IPR) based on pending parallel litigation involving the same patents.  Apple Inc. v. Vidal, No. 2022-1249, —F.4th— (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2023).  The CAFC affirmed the unreviewability dismissal of the challenge to the Fintiv instructions as contrary to statute and arbitrary and capricious but reversed and remanded the dismissal of the challenge to the instructions as improperly issued without a notice-and-comment period.

On February 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed a final written decision by the Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), finding the challenged claim not unpatentable as obvious.  Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, No. 2022-0138 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2023).  In doing so, the CAFC held that the PTAB improperly required the petitioner to show the prior art references could be “bodily incorporated.”

On February 15, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), based on the patentee’s disclosure of devices having the patented technology at an industry event.  Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 2021-2246 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2023).  The Court found that the patentee had allowed sophisticated industry members to scrutinize the devices closely, such that they would have understood the invention, without any obligations of confidentiality.

On February 10, 2023, Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Katherine K. Vidal issued a decision affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision to deny institution of inter partes review. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 12 (Feb. 10, 2023). The Board had found, and Director Vidal agreed, that Petitioners’ expert testimony was entitled to little weight because it merely repeated, verbatim, the conclusory arguments in the petition itself. Director Vidal’s decision is “word from the top” that the practice of simply “parroting” a petition’s arguments in the expert declaration is strongly disfavored and unlikely to carry the day on invalidity.

On February 17, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in Case No. 8:22-cv-00314-CRZ, where Judge Brian C. Buescher had granted a preliminary injunction against appellant plaintiff.  Lite-Netics LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. February 17, 2023).  In its order, the CAFC held that the district court abused its discretion by barring plaintiff from suggesting to customers that appellee defendant is a patent infringer and that they might be sued.

On February 1, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted a petition for writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (W.D. Tex.) to vacate its order denying transfer and to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.).  In re Google LLC, No. 2023-101, —F.4th— (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2023).  The Federal Circuit found that the W.D. Tex. clearly abused its discretion in, inter alia, weighing the court congestion factor against transfer where plaintiff did not compete in the market and is not threatened in the market in a way that might otherwise add urgency to case resolution.
 

On February 8, 2023, in a precedential order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the decision by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny CyWee Group Ltd.’s (“CyWee’s”) request for rehearing of two IPR proceedings.  In doing so, the CAFC rejected CyWee’s argument that the Director is required to actually review, or be able to review, all institution decisions and final written decisions within the statutory time frames set by 35 U.S.C. §§ 316(a)(11) and 314(b).  CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 2020-1565 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2023).
 

On January 9, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted writs of mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:21-cv-00045-JRG and 2:21-cv-00046-JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, vacated district court orders transferring two patent cases to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and instructing the court to recall the cases.  In re Stingray IP Solutions, LLC, __F.3d _(Fed. Cir. January 9, 2023).  In its order, the CAFC held that defendants could not avoid application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) by merely consenting to jurisdiction in a district other than the one chosen by plaintiff.

On January 17, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts holding that certain claims of U.S. Pat. No. 7,299,067 (’067 patent) were not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Riggs Tech. Holdings, LLC. v. Cengage Learning, Inc., No. 2022-1468, (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17, 2023).  The CAFC panel (Taranto, Chen, and Stoll) reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and reached the same conclusion as the district court:  the representative claim is directed to an abstract idea containing no inventive concept and the patent is not eligible for patent protection.

On December 29, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an interlocutory appeal of an order by the District of Utah maintaining the confidentiality of defendant’s source code and denying access by plaintiff’s in-house counsel.  Modern Font Applications LLC v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., No. 2021-1838 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 29, 2022).  The Federal Circuit found that the district court decision did not satisfy the factors of the collateral order doctrine so as to permit interlocutory review because the order would be reviewable after a final judgment.

On December 20, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating and remanding in part, the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in a patent infringement and trade dress litigation between money-clip wallet competitors Mosaic Brands, Inc. (“Mosaic”) and Ridge Wallet LLC (“Ridge”).  Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, Appeal No. 22-1001 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2022).

On December 8, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding that certain patent claims were unpatentable in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding renders a similar claim of a related patent unpatentable based on collateral estoppel. Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc., No. 2021-2218 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2022).

On November 30, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington striking portions of a plaintiff’s expert report and granting summary judgment of non-infringement to defendant.  Treehouse Avatar LLC v. Valve Corp., No. 21-1171 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2022).  The CAFC found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to strike portions of the report, nor did it err in its finding that plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s evidence of non-infringement.

On November 14, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) allowing claim amendments during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that addressed issues additional to those raised by the grounds relied upon for institution of the IPR. Am. Nat’l Mfg. Inc. v. Sleep No. Corp., Nos. 2021-1321, 1323, 1379, 1382, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2022). The Court found that the PTAB had not erred when it permitted Sleep Number, the patent owner, to submit claim amendments in IPR that addressed Section 112 issues (which were additional to amendments addressing the instituted grounds).

On November 8, 2022, in a precedential order, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted Apple Inc.’s petition for a writ of mandamus vacating the scheduling order of the District Court for the Western District of Texas and directing that court to stay all proceedings on the merits and resolve Apple’s pending motion to transfer.  While the CAFC did not decide the extent to which merits discovery may proceed while issues of venue and venue discovery are still pending, it nevertheless ruled that transfer decisions must “proceed expeditiously” as “the first order of business.”  In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-162 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022).
 

On November 1, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding a summary judgment decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, finding asserted claims from a family of related patents indefinite and thus invalid. Finjan LLC, Inc. v. ESET, LLC, No. 2021-2093 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2022). The CAFC held, inter alia, that the district court’s construction of the term “Downloadable,” appearing in all asserted claims, was improperly restricted to the narrowest of competing definitions provided in the patent family.

On October 19, 2022, the Federal Circuit, on a petition for writ of mandamus, vacated and remanded an order by Judge Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) denying FedEx Corporate Services, Inc.’s motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Tennessee (WDTN). In re FedEx Corp. Servs., Inc., No. 2022-156 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2022). The Court found that the district court had erred in its analysis of the local interest factor and had failed to provide a sufficient explanation regarding witness-related factors, the latter of which left the Court “unable to effectively conduct mandamus review on the present record.”

On October 17, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the ruling of the Western District of Washington (W.D. Wash.) that patents directed to abstract ideas absent a transformative inventive concept are not deemed to be patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. IBM v. Zillow Grp., Inc., No. 2021-2350, -- F.4th -- (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2022).