Yesterday, March 6, 2013, in Radio Systems Corp. v. Lalor, No. 2012-1233, the Federal Circuit (Newman, Moore, and Reyna) held that equitable estoppel barred infringement claims for one patent against an alleged infringer’s successor-in-interest, but did not bar infringement claims for a related patent that issued after the misleading conduct began. The court also
Motorola, Apple dispute relevance of recent Supreme Court case to FRAND jurisdictional dispute
A quick update for those interested in the Apple-Motorola Federal Circuit FRAND appeal:
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gunn v. Minton, where the Court determined that a plaintiff’s patent litigation-related state law malpractice claim did not “arise under” the federal patent laws and did not create federal jurisdiction under
Patent Alert: Federal Circuit delves into doctrine of equivalents and concept of vitiation (Brilliant Instruments v. GuideTech)
Today, February 20, 2013, in Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, Inc., No. 2012-1018, the Federal Circuit (Dyk (dissenting-in-part), Moore, and Reyna) reversed the Northern District of California’s prior grant of summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents based on fact issues regarding whether a capacitor that was “part of” a
Apple, Motorola continue fight over Federal Circuit FRAND jurisdiction: Motorola’s Reply Brief
Today, Motorola Mobility filed a reply brief in support of its efforts to dismiss Apple’s Federal Circuit FRAND appeal (or at least transfer it to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals). As you’ll recall, a few weeks ago, Motorola filed a unique motion to dismiss Apple’s appeal, claiming the Federal Circuit lacked jurisdiction because (for more info, see our original post on Motorola’s motion). Apple filed an opposition, asserting that the case was properly appealed to the Federal Circuit. In its relatively short reply, Motorola targets two particular assertions that Apple claims vest the Federal Circuit with jurisdiction: (1) that Apple’s declaratory judgment complaint was filed “in response” to a hypothetical complaint of patent infringement; and (2) that the dismissal of certain Apple claims without prejudice does not divest the Federal Circuit of jurisdiction.
RANDomness: Trashing the patent system?
- A draft of this particular paper has been floating around for months, but two economics professors from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, Michele Boldrin and David K Levine, have finally published their paper titled “The Case Against Patents” in the winter 2013 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives.
- At the Brookings Institution, Senior
Patent Alert: Assignor estoppel is not a federal cause of action (Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Nagata)
On February 11, 2013, in Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Nagata, No. 2012-1245, the Federal Circuit (Lourie, Bryson, and Wallach) affirmed a decision by the Northern District of California that dismissed a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This case provides insight into the appropriateness of using a named inventor as a fact witness in an infringement action based on his or her patent.
Continue Reading Patent Alert: Assignor estoppel is not a federal cause of action (Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Nagata)
Apple: Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over Apple-Motorola FRAND/antitrust appeal
Yesterday Apple filed its opposition to Motorola’s motion to dismiss or transfer for lack of jurisdiction in Federal Circuit appeal No. 2013-1150. This is Apple’s appeal of Judge Crabb’s dismissal of the Apple-Motorola FRAND/antitrust action (W.D. Wis. No. 3:10-cv-00178)). Apple contends that the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over Apple’s appeal of the dismissal of its declaratory judgment claims because (1) the hypothetical Motorola complaint at which Apple’s declaratory judgment claim was directed would be for patent infringement, and (2) the district’s court’s decision to dismiss the patent-specific DJ claims without prejudice does not deprive the Federal Circuit of jurisdiction. As we anticipated in our post on Motorola’s motion to dismiss/transfer, some of Apple’s arguments in its opposition raise some interesting questions about whether jurisdiction over this appeal will be consistent with past and potential future appeals of orders in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND case.
Continue Reading Apple: Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over Apple-Motorola FRAND/antitrust appeal
Patent Alert: Federal Circuit Finds Justiciable Controversy for Declaratory Judgment of No Indirect Infringement Liability
Today, February 5, 2013, in Arkema Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 2012-1308, the Federal Circuit (Dyk, Plager, and O’Malley) found that an Article III case or controversy over indirect infringement liability existed between two competitors in the automobile refrigerant market. This case provides incremental insight into the circumstances under which a
RANDomness
- Patent Peace in South Korea: Samsung and LG Electronics have settled their contentious patent and trade secret dispute relating to organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology that is widely used in flat-panel televisions and computer monitors. (via CNET)
- For the second time in a week, the Federal Circuit denied Apple’s request for an en banc
En banc Federal Circuit to hold oral argument Friday regarding patentability of software patents (CLS Bank v. Alice)
This Friday, February 8, an en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. (No. 2011-1301), the latest Federal Circuit case to deal with the patentability of software-related patents and so-called business methods. Given that the technologies claimed in many standard-essential patents are often implemented in standards-compliant products via software, the Federal Circuit’s holding in this case may have resounding consequences for the world of SEPs and SEP-related litigation.
UPDATE: The Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision holding the claims invalid. Please see our May 13, 2013 post for more details.