Federal Circuit

Subscribe to Federal Circuit via RSS

CAFC

Motorola and Apple are currently facing off over patent-related issues in several ongoing judicial proceedings, including multiple appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  One of these Federal Circuit appeals was brought by Apple over Judge Crabb’s dismissal of Apple’s claims that Motorola violated the antitrust laws and breached its contracts with SSOs in conducting its SEP-related licensing and enforcement activities.  But on January 25, Motorola filed a motion with the Federal Circuit to dismiss Apple’s appeal (or transfer it to the Seventh Circuit), asserting that the Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.  While at first blush this seems like just a mundane dispute over civil procedure issues, a decision on this motion may have significant consequences for future FRAND-related proceedings.Continue Reading Motorola disputes Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction over Apple’s FRAND-related appeal, argues for dismissal or transfer

On Fri., January 25, 2013, in Hall v. Bed Bath & Beyond, No. 2011-1165, the Federal Circuit (Newman, Lourie (dissenting-in-part), and Linn) held that a towel design patent owner properly pled claims of patent infringement, false advertising, misappropriation, and unfair competition.  The Court also held that certain inventor statements on whether the towel was covered by his patent did not create liability for false advertising or false marking.  This case indicates that the pleading requirements for design and utility patents are fairly similar.
Continue Reading Patent Alert: Federal Circuit Finds No Special Requirements for Pleading Design Patent Infringement

On January 22, 2013, in Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., No. 2011-1009, the Federal Circuit (Newman, Prost, and Reyna) reversed a decision by the Eastern District of Texas that had upheld the validity of a computer-implemented invention over an obviousness challenge.  This case suggests that computer-implemented patents may face increased scrutiny…

  • nike already shoe comparisonLast week, the United States Supreme Court handed down its unanimous opinion in Already, LLC v. Nike (No. 11-982).  The Court held that Nike’s issuance of a broad covenant not to sue on one of its trademarks extinguished Already’s standing to its counterclaim for invalidity of Nike’s trademark.  While this case involved trademarks, not patents,

…

Later this year, in the case of Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc. (Nos. 2012-1548, -1549), the Federal Circuit is set to address several issues that could have a big effect on future licensing and assertion of standard-essential patents.  As explained in our previous post “catching up on” the details of this dispute, this appeal follows Judge Posner’s dismissal of both Apple’s and Motorola’s dueling infringement claims, which was based on the parties’ failure to prove entitlement to the remedies sought.  Because Motorola had asserted a FRAND-encumbered standard-essential patent against Apple’s UMTS-compliant products, the Federal Circuit is likely to decide at least two issues that may have widespread implications for SEP licensing and litigation for years to come: (1) whether injunctive relief may be an appropriate remedy for Apple’s alleged infringement of Motorola’s FRAND-pledged SEPs; and (2) how to calculate damages for Apple’s alleged infringement of Motorola’s FRAND-pledged SEPs.
Continue Reading Various amici weigh in on SEP-related issues in Apple-Motorola Federal Circuit appeal

Today the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam order (with Judge Newman dissenting) denying a combined petition for a panel rehearing and a rehearing en banc in InterDigital Communications v. International Trade Commission (No. 2010-1093) (en banc).  However, along with the order, the panel also issued a new opinion to fully address arguments made by intervenor Nokia (the respondent in the underlying ITC case, Inv. No. 337-TA-613).  In the opinion (written by Judge Bryson), the Court reiterates its prior conclusion (InterDigital Commc’ns v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that non-practicing entities (NPEs) may satisfy the ITC’s domestic industry requirement through substantial investment in domestic licensing activities, without any need to prove that any licensed products are actually produced domestically.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit affirms broad ITC jurisdiction over Section 337 actions brought by NPEs (InterDigital v. ITC)

Because so many SEP-related issues have arisen over the past year, we will periodically revisit some of the more important episodes with a brief post.  Judge Richard Posner’s June 22, 2012 ruling in the Apple v. Motorola patent infringement litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, and the subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit fall into this category.

Even people who don’t routinely follow the smartphone patent wars likely are aware of the patent dispute between Motorola and Apple.  After prior license negotiations failed, the parties filed dueling patent infringement lawsuits in October 2010.  Some of these infringement actions were consolidated in a case before Judge Posner, who sat by designation at the district court.  A jury trial was scheduled for June 2012: Apple asserted Motorola infringed claims of four non-standard-essential patents, while Motorola asserted Apple infringed claims of one patent that was essential to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications Standard (UMTS, a 3G cellular standard).  But as the trial date approached, Judge Posner excluded all of the parties’ respective expert testimony on damages.  Finding that neither party could prove an entitlement to damages, Judge Posner tentatively canceled the jury trial, finding that it would make little sense to hold a jury trial on infringement liability if a party could not receive relief.  However, he allowed the parties to submit further briefing, including relating to the potential for equitable remedies such as injunctive relief.  Because Motorola asserted an SEP that was encumbered by a FRAND licensing commitment, Judge Posner specifically requested that Motorola address the bearing of FRAND on the injunction analysis.Continue Reading Catching up on … Apple v. Motorola (N.D. Ill./Fed. Cir.)