On July 21, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement that its patent was not invalid due to inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).  General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum LLC, 2-20-cv-00007 (Robert W. Schroeder, III).

On July 13, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, No. 6:20-cv-00622-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright, directing transfer.  In re: TCO AS, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2021).  In its order, the CAFC let stand Judge Albright’s decision denying Petitioner’s motion to transfer.

On July 13, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded appellant Bot M8 LLC’s (“Bot M8”) appeal of several underlying orders related to the dismissal of its patent infringement action against Sony Corporation of America (“Sony”).  Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation of America, ___ F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2021).  The CAFC clarified that while a plaintiff need not plead infringement on an element-by-element basis, reciting claim elements and merely concluding that the accused products have those elements is insufficient.

On July 6, 2021, Judge Noreika of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued an Order denying defendant’s motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from asserting claims of a patent that were found unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in an inter partes review.  TrustID, Inc. v. Next Caller Inc., Slip. Op. (D. Del. July 6, 2021).  The Court determined that plaintiff was not collaterally estopped.

On June 30, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted petitions for writs of mandamus ordering the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer the underlying actions to the Northern District of California.  In re Samsung Elecs. Co., LTD, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2021).

On June 21, 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California awarded defendants’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S. Code § 285 for work performed in defending against claims of patent infringement in district court, and more significantly, also awarded defendants’ fees and costs for a related appeal, the related Covered Business Method (“CBM”) proceedings, and an appeal of the CBM proceedings.  Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, LLC et. al., 3-12-cv-00733.

On June 7, 2021, Judge Christina A. Snyder of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Trustee of the Summers Family Trust TA Neak Products Buff WA Pty, Ltd v. National Distribution Warehouse, Inc. d/b/a Teacher's Choice, case no. 2:20-cv-10741-CAS-Ex.  Judge Snyder specifically found that plaintiff had not carried its burden to establish purposeful direction targeted at California or a nexus to a forum-related activity.

On June 1, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated-in-part and remanded a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia related to prosecution laches.  Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, --- F.3d --- (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2021).  The CAFC determined that the appellant, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), met its burden to prove prosecution laches, and remanded to the district court to determine whether appellee Gilbert Hyatt had a legitimate reason to excuse his prosecution delay.

On May 21, 2021, Judge Alan D. Albright of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.  10Tales, Inc. v. TikTok Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00810-ADA (W.D. Tex. May 21, 2021).  The Court found that, under Fifth Circuit precedent, the Northern District of California was a “clearly more convenient” forum.

On May 12, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing, for lack of personal jurisdiction, a declaratory judgment noninfringement action. Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2021).

On May 11, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming a judgement of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding all asserted claims of appellant’s patents on DNA-sequencing technology invalid and denying appellant’s motion for a new trial.  Pac. Biosciences of Cal., Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Techs., Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2021).  In its decision, the CAFC upheld a jury verdict finding the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement, and affirmed the district court’s decision that appellee’s opening statement respecting the impact of the trial on the fight against Covid-19 did not warrant a new trial.

On May 5, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld a decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California setting aside a judgment and injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3).  Cap Export, LLC v. Zinus, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2021).  The CAFC found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) where the patentee’s president and expert witness misrepresented his knowledge of highly material prior art in his deposition.

On April 22, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted defendants’ motion opposing enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.  Wapp Tech Ltd. Partnership v. Seattle Spinco, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-469 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2021).  The Court found plaintiffs’ argument that defendants did not present a good faith defense unpersuasive, and instead ruled that the case “was a ‘garden-variety’ patent case, rather than an egregious case of misconduct.”

On April 20, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Alan D. Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to transfer a case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).  In re TracFone Wireless, Inc., __ F. App’x __ (Fed. Cir. April 20, 2021).  The CAFC found that Judge Albright clearly abused his discretion when, in denying TracFone’s motion to transfer, he found that SDFL was not a clearly more convenient forum to litigate the case between the parties. 

On April 13, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), finding that the claims of the challenged patent had not been proved obvious because the petition for inter partes review (IPR) failed to show that there would have been a motivation to combine the two allegedly invalidating prior art references.  Apple Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC, —F.3d — (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2021).

On April 5, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion reversing a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that had found Google liable for copying elements of Oracle’s Java computer code.  Google LLC v. Oracle Inc., No. 18-956, 593 U.S. ____ (2021).  According to the Court, Google’s copying, which was limited to only those lines of code needed to enable Java programmers to create new and transformative programs, was a fair use as a matter of law.

On March 25, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming a ruling of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding patent claims directed to methods of interpreting genetic data to be patent ineligible.  In re Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ., --- F.3d --- (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2021).  The CAFC found that the rejected claims are drawn to patent-ineligible abstract mathematical calculations and statistical modeling, and that the claim limitations do not establish an inventive concept sufficient to transform such subject matter into patentable subject matter.

On March 11, 2021, Judge Alan D. Albright of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.  Precis Group, LLC, v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 6-20-CV-00303 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2021).  The Court found that a retail store operating in the district under an assumed name was defendant’s established place of business, and therefore sufficient to establish venue.
 

On March 9, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming estoppel and obviousness rulings by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).  Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2021).  The CAFC ruled that it had jurisdiction to review the PTAB’s decision as to estoppel related to the inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel provision of Section 315(e)(1).  The CAFC further ruled that a joined party to a first IPR was not barred from maintaining review of claims that the primary challenger became estopped from challenging based on a decision in a second IPR to which the challenger was joined.
 

On March 2, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing the district court’s conclusion that a claim was not invalid as indefinite.  Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Am., Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2021).  The CAFC held that the claim term, “user identification module,” was a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and invalid as indefinite for failure to disclose corresponding structure (here, an algorithm).
 

On February 24, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming the obviousness decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Daikin Indus., LTD v. The Chemours Co. FC, LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2021).  The CAFC found that the petition for inter partes review (IPR) properly set forth a substitution-based theory of obviousness and that the PTAB’s substitution analysis was supported by substantial evidence.
 

On February 10, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, invalidating all asserted claims of appellant’s four related patents under 35 U.S.C. § 112.  Infinity Computer Products v. Oki Data Americas Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2021).  In its decision, the CAFC ruled that the asserted claims were rendered indefinite by conflicting statements made by appellant during prosecution of the asserted patents.
 

On January 28, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA) issued an order granting summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents.  Fluidigm Corp. v. IONpath, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-05639-WHA, Dkt. No. 210 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021).  The NDCA found that the patentee “abdicated” its burden under the doctrine of equivalents by refusing to engage in the hypothetical claim analysis required under defendant’s ensnarement defense.
 

On January 21, 2021, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania adopted the report and recommendation of the special master recommending the court grant defendant’s motion to exclude options set forth in an expert report prepared on behalf of patentee-plaintiff, because those opinions were contradicted by patentee-plaintiff’s statements to the patent office made during reexamination of the at-issue patent.
 

On January 6, 2021, Judge James V. Selna of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted, in part, defendant Feit Electric Co., Inc.’s (“Feit”) motion for partial summary judgment related to plaintiff Zadro Prods, Inc.’s (“Zadro”) alleged failure to properly mark certain products.  Zadro Prods, Inc. v. Feit Electric Co., Inc., Case No. SACV-20-101-JVS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2021).  Judge Selna found that:  (1) Zadro’s alleged failure to disclose that it marked its products in a discovery response was not grounds for summary judgment; (2) an issue of material fact remained as to whether Zadro’s products practiced one of the patents in suit; and (3) Zadro’s marking of the packaging of its products which practiced one of the patents in suit (rather than the products themselves) was insufficient under 35 U.S.C § 287.
 

On January 9, 2021, Judge Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted, in part, a request for attorneys’ fees to the prevailing defendant.  Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., case no. C 17-05659 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2021).  Judge Alsup found that plaintiff’s case stood out as exceptional in certain respects and, accordingly, issued a limited award for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
 

On December 14, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the Central District of California holding all asserted claims of appellant’s ’305 patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. December 14, 2020).  The CAFC concluded that the district court correctly found that the claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked any inventive concept, and that dismissal of appellant’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper.
 

On December 8, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) unsealed its November 30, 2020, order granting dismissal without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.  TriOptima AB v. Quantile Techs. Ltd., Case No. 2:19-cv-00390-JRG, Dkt. No. 154 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2020); TriOptima AB v. Quantile Techs. Ltd., Case No. 2:19-cv-00390-JRG, Dkt. No. 149 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2020).  The EDTX found that the United Kingdom-based defendant was not subjected to specific personal jurisdiction in Texas by providing financial services that can affect Texas interests through a secure customer portal website.
 

On December 1, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an opinion denying plaintiff Abbott Laboratories’ motion to dismiss infringement counterclaims brought by defendants Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc., Grifols Worldwide Operations Ltd., and Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.  Abbott brought a declaratory judgment action against defendants asserting that U.S. Patent No. 7,205,101 (“the ’101 patent”) is invalid.  Defendants filed a counterclaim asserting that Abbott infringes claim 7 of the ’101 patent.  Abbott moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that claim 7 is invalid as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is directed to a patent-ineligible natural phenomenon.
 

On November 18, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR).  Google LLC v. EcoFactor Inc., case no. IPR2020-00946 (PTAB Nov. 18, 2020).  In its decision, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution because of a co-pending investigation before the International Trade Commission (ITC) involving the challenged patent.
 

On November 10, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing-in-part the invalidity judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, as it pertained to patent eligibility, and vacating its remaining infringement, willfulness, and prior art invalidity findings.  C.R. Bard Inc. et al. v. Angiodynamics, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020).
 

On Tuesday, November 3, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) denied a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the CAFC vacate the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s (C.D. Cal.) order granting an adverse inference instruction in connection with Ivantis Inc.’s failure to preserve relevant evidence for litigation.  In re Ivantis, Inc., F.3d __, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3, 2020).  The CAFC found no reason to depart from the usual practice of waiting until after final judgment to review the C.D. Cal.’s order.
 

On October 23, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a bench ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding all 159 claims in five asserted patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Systems, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. October 23, 2020).  In its decision, the CAFC concluded that the district court’s analysis of patent eligibility under Section 101 was too cursory to allow for meaningful appellate review, and directed the district court to consider the issue further and elaborate on its reasoning.
 

On October 16, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting summary judgment of noninfringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. , Case No. 4:19-cv-06593-HSG, Dkt. No. 98 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2020).  The Court found that defendant’s importation of samples into the United States for conducting preclinical investigations and for intended demonstrations at a clinical conference were exempt from patent infringement liability, regardless of whether there was a commercial purpose underlying such conduct.
 

On October 8, 2020, Judge Andrea R. Wood of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied plaintiff Think Product, Inc.’s motion to reconsider a finding of patent invalidity.  Think Products, Inc. v. Acco Brands Corp. and Acco Brands, USA LLC, No. 18-cv-07506 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2020).  The Court had previously granted defendants Acco Brands Corporation’s and Acco Brands, USA LLC’s motion for summary judgment invalidating two patents based on collateral estoppel arising from rulings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidating for obviousness two similar patents.
 

On October 6, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, rejecting Patent Owner’s argument that the PTAB should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution because the same prior art and arguments were before the Patent Office Examiner during original prosecution.  Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Bot M8, LLC, Case No. IPR2020-00726 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020).  In doing so, the PTAB agreed with Petitioner that the Examiner overlooked a reference’s teaching. 
 

On September 30, 2020, 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’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), finding certain challenged claims unpatentable under the PTAB’s claim construction of “low-power radio frequency signal,” and finding that substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s underlying factual findings relating to the challenged claims.  Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2020).
 

On September 24, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, vacating, and remanding a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that Appellant’s patent claims are not infringed; that Cross-appellant is estopped from raising certain validity challenges based on its joinder to an inter partes review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”); and that asserted claim 6 was not improperly broadened during reexamination.  Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2020).  In its decision, the CAFC vacated the district court’s judgment of non-infringement as based on incorrect claim construction, vacated the district court’s judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on validity for improperly applying statutory estoppel, and affirmed the district court’s decision with respect to improper claim broadening.
 

On September 10, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss allegations of patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101.  FullView, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., No. 18-CV-00510-EMC, 2020 WL 5430309 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2020).  The district court found that the at-issue claims were ineligible for two reasons.  First, the claims were not directed to a patent-eligible category under Section 101.  Second, the claims were directed to the abstract idea of combining multiple pictures to create one larger picture without offering an inventive concept, as required under the two-step test in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
 

On September 8, 2020, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued an opinion suspending enforcement of remedial orders pending appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) final written decision (“FWD”) of unpatentability in a parallel inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding.  Certain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1133, Comm’n Op. (Sept. 8, 2020); Certain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1133, Final Determination (Aug. 20, 2020).  In its opinion, the ITC relied on its broad discretion in selecting a remedy, its recognition of the PTAB’s leading role in assessing the validity of patent claims, and Congress’s goal for IPRs to be a substitute for litigation on patent validity issues.
 

On August 27, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissing plaintiff Baxalta Inc.’s (“Baxalta”) infringement suit against Genetech, Inc. (“Genentech”).  Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2020).
 

On August 18, 2020, Director Iancu of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a Memorandum entitled “Treatment of Statements of the Applicant in the Challenged Patent in Inter Partes Reviews Under § 311.”  The Memo provides binding guidance concerning the USPTO’s view of the use of “applicant admitted prior art” (referred to as “AAPA” or “APA,” for short) by a petitioner to support a patentability challenge in an inter partes review (“IPR”).
 

On August 20, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing plaintiff-appellant Security People, Inc.’s suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) challenging the constitutionality of the cancellation of its patent in an inter partes review proceeding (“IPR”).  Security People, Inc. v. Iancu, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2020).
 

On August 3, 2020, Judge Alan Albright of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings that plaintiff was barred from asserting infringement by defendants’ smartphone applications.  Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC v. BB&T Corp., No. 6-19-CV-00594-ADA.
 

On Friday, July 28, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) directed the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (W.D. Tex.) to grant Adobe Inc.’s (“Adobe”) motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.).  In re: Adobe Inc., F.3d __, (Fed. Cir. Jul. 28, 2020).  The CAFC found that the court (i) did not properly accord weight to convenience of the transferee forum; (ii) overlooked that the willing witness factor favored transfer; and (iii) “ran afoul of governing precedent in giving dispositive weight to its ability to more quickly schedule a trial.”  The CAFC ultimately held that “the district court’s denial of transfer here was a clear abuse of discretion.”
 

On July 22, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) denial of a rehearing on a motion to amend the claims of a patent challenged in an inter partes review (IPR).  Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC & Netflix, Inc., No. 19-1686, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2020).  The CAFC held that the PTAB may consider any ground of unpatentability—not just anticipation or obviousness grounds based on patents or printed publications under Section 311(b)—when considering the patentability of substitute claims during an IPR.
 

On July 13, 2020, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued a ruling on a motion to dismiss claims relating to willfulness, induced, and contributory infringement.  Michigan Motor Techs. LLC v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Case No. 19-10485 (E.D. Mich. July 13, 2020).  The Court granted the motion after finding that plaintiff had not met the pleading requirements from Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and specifically ruled that an allegation of willful infringement for enhanced damages requires a pleading of egregious conduct.
 

On July 7, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an Order on Motion vacating and remanding the underlying decisions in ex parte appeals of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) affirming the examiner’s rejection of patent application claims.  In re Boloro Global Ltd., No. 2019-2349 (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2020).  In doing so, the CAFC applied the reasoning from its decisions in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) and VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2019-1671, 2020 WL 2462797 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2020), which held that administrative patent judges (“APJs”) were “principal officers” and not constitutionally appointed at the time the PTAB issued its final decisions in the underlying inter partes review and re-exam proceedings, respectively.
 

On July 1, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion vacating and remanding the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denying attorney fees following a judgment of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Electronic Communication Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, F.3d (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2020).
 

On June 23, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted a third inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435.  LG Electronics Inc. v. Bell Northern Research LLC, case numbers IPR2020-00318.  In its decision, the PTAB declined to exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny review on efficiency and fairness grounds.