On March 27, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) issued an opinion, affirming a United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “district court”) decision relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,676,411 (the “’411 patent”); 7,813,996 (the “’996 patent”); 6,766,304 (the “’304 patent”); and 6,772,132 (the “’132 patent”), (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). The district court held the asserted claims of the ’411 and ’996 patents invalid, and a jury found the asserted claims of the ’304 and ’132 patents valid and infringed and awarded $6,610,985 in damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Brumfield, Tr. for Ascent Tr. v. IBG LLC, No. 2022-1630, __F.4th__, 2024 WL 1292151 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024). 

On December 26, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed a decision from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Case No. 2:21-cv-03402-GW-AGR, Judge George H. Wu, granting appellee motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. K-Fee System Gmbh v. Nespresso USA, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. December 26, 2023). In its precedential decision, the CAFC found that the district court’s non-infringement finding was based on an erroneous construction of the claim term “barcode.”

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 September 30, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) denied a petition for writ of mandamus challenging, inter alia, the denial of a motion to dismiss for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (W.D. Tex.).  In re Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., No. 2022-153, -- F.4th --  (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2022).  Noting that mandamus review is not ordinarily available for rulings on improper venue motions, a panel majority found that the district court’s fact-specific ruling does not involve the type of broad, fundamental and recurring legal question or usurpation of judicial power that warrants the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

On September 16, 2022, Judge Albright of the Western District of Texas denied three related Defendants’ motion to transfer venue, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California, on the grounds that venue in California would be improper for one of the moving Defendants, a holding company.  MOV-ology LLC v. BigCommerce Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No. 6-22-cv-00084 (WDTX).

On September 19, 2022, Magistrate Judge Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a Report and Recommendation regarding certain foreign defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to perfect service of process.  Arigna Tech. Ltd. v. Nissan Motor Co., No. 2:22-cv-00126-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2022).  Judge Payne recommended denying the motion, finding that service on an agent of the foreign defendants’ U.S. subsidiary was proper.

On September 7, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a district court dismissal under the duplicative-litigation doctrine.  Under the duplicative-litigation doctrine, plaintiffs cannot “maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court … against the same defendant.”  Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. 2021-1967, 2022 BL 313997 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2022).

On August 17, 2022, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity, finding that IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) barred Ingenio, Inc.’s invalidity argument, even though the challenged claim had not been addressed by the PTAB in the final written decision in Ingenio’s IPR.  Click-to-Call Techs. LP v. Ingenio, Inc., No. 2022-1016 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 17, 2022).

On August 3, 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) ordered that four patent cases—two patent infringement actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and one declaratory judgment action each in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of Texas—be consolidated in the Eastern District of Texas and that the Honorable J. Rodney Gilstrap shall preside over the multidistrict district litigation.  In re Taasera Licensing, LLC, Pat. Litig., No. MDL 3042 (J.P.M.L.).

On May 26, 2022, Judge Joan M. Azrack of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue on account of plaintiffs’ failure to plead sufficient venue-related allegations, and further denied plaintiffs’ request for venue discovery.  UI Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Ricoma International Corp., et al., 2-22-cv-00220 (May. 26, 2022).

On May 23, 2022, the 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 No. 2:19-cv-00362-JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, directing the district court to transfer patent cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  In re Google LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022).  In its order, the CAFC held that the district court abused its discretion in failing to weigh the local interest factor in favor of transferee forum and erred in its analysis of other factors.

On April 7, 2022, Judge Selna of the United States District Court for the Central District of California (CDCA) granted plaintiff’s motion for a presumption of patent infringement and to shift the burden pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295.  PureCircle USA Inc. et al v. SweeGen, Inc. et al, 8-18-cv-01679.

On April 18, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action for lack of personal jurisdiction by the United States District Court for the Norther District of California (NDCA).  Apple, Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc., No. 2021-1760 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2022).  The CAFC found that the NDCA erred in applying a bright-line rule that patent infringement notice letters can never form the basis for personal jurisdiction.

On April 4, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential opinion vacating claim constructions ordered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 1:17-cv-12375-IT, Judge Indira Talwani.  Littelfuse, Inc. v.  Mersen USA EP Corp., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. April 4, 2022).  In its order, the CAFC concluded that the district court’s constructions incorrectly limited claim scope to a preferred embodiment and rendered certain dependent claims superfluous.

On March 3, 2022, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas entered a redacted copy of its February 24, 2022 order striking plaintiff’s expert report on damages and excluding the testimony of its damages expert.  Daedalus Blue LLC v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00073-ADA, Dkt. No. 173 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2022).  The Court found the expert’s initial, timely-served report used the wrong parties in his hypothetical negotiation analysis and, for that reason, could not withstand defendant’s Daubert challenge.  On the other hand, the expert’s “supplemental” report re-doing his analysis with the correct parties was untimely and thus stricken.

On February 25, 2022, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX) filed a redacted copy of its February 11, 2022 order denying a motion to dismiss for improper venue.  WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing & Dev. v. Canon Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00980-ADA, Dkt. No. 137 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2022).  The WDTX, applying a more relaxed burden for purposes of establishing venue through an alter ego theory, found that defendant had a regular and established place of business in the District through the office of its wholly-owned subsidiary.

On February 23, 2022, Judge Payne of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) granted plaintiff’s motion to sever defendant’s counterclaims asserting patent infringement of claims directed to technologies that are distinct from those at-issue in plaintiff’s offensive case.  United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank, NA, 2-20-cv-00319.

On January 19, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) to transfer the case against petitioner to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA).  In re Netflix, Inc., No. 2022-110 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2022).  The CAFC found that Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s denial of transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) was a clear abuse of discretion.

On January 6, 2022, Chief Judge Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) of the patent asserted in the litigation, and found that defendant was relying on the EPR as part of a strategy of “examiner shopping.”  Longhorn HD LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., 2-20-cv-00349.

On December 8, 2021, Judge Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a sealed opinion granting the defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia.  Lynk Labs, Inc v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00097-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2021).  A public, redacted version has since published, in which the court addresses the public and private interest convenience factors, finding that the Northern District of Georgia was a clearly more convenient forum.

On December 1, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two opinions related to the same inter partes review (IPR) petitioner’s standing to appeal two decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  ModernaTx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp, — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. Dec. 1, 2021); ModernaTx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp f/k/a Protiva Biotherapeutics, Inc., — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. Dec. 1, 2021).  In the first opinion, the CAFC found that petitioner had established standing by demonstrating a sufficient risk of an infringement suit based on the patent owner’s statements and actions.  In the second opinion, the CAFC found that petitioner lacked standing at the time the appeal was filed because petitioner’s evidence of financial burden from the validity of the patent at issue was too speculative.

On November 15, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found that the asserted claims directed at data collection, storage, management, and access were abstract, but refused to dismiss the claims under the second step in the Alice analysis. Gravel Rating Systems, LLC v. McAfee, LLC, Case No. 4:21-CV-259-ALM.

On November 5, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an order affirming a decision by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 2:19-cv-05802-ES-MAH, Judge Esther Salas, dismissing a patent infringement suit for improper venue and failure to state a claim.  Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2021).  In its order, the CAFC affirmed that plaintiff had not established that the domestic defendants committed acts of infringement in New Jersey or had regular and established places of business there and had not sufficiently pleaded a claim against the foreign parent defendant.

On October 19, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) granted a petition for writ of mandamus ordering the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer the underlying action to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  In re DISH Network, L.L.C., No. 2021-182 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2021).  The CAFC held that Judge Albright abused his discretion when denying DISH’s motion to transfer on convenience grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

On October 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion rejecting a patentee’s arguments challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) structure based on its purported financial interest in instituting inter partes reviews (IPRs).  Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, --- F.3d --- (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021).  The CAFC found that the financial interests of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) leadership and of individual administrative patent judges (APJs) were too remote to violate due process under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tumey v. Ohio.

On September 10, 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, Nos. 6:20-cv-00952-ADA, 6:20-cv-00953-ADA, 6:20-cv-00956-ADA, 6:20-cv-00957-ADA, and 6:20-cv-00958-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright, directing dismissal of five patent infringement actions for insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction.  In re:  ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY (SHENZEN) CO., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2021).  In its order, the CAFC let stand Judge Albrights’s decision finding that the mandamus petitioner’s right to service only under the Hague Convention is not clear and indisputable.

On September 1, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) found that the District Court for the Central District of California erred in awarding damages for sales of infringing products prior to the date that the infringer received actual notice of infringement for failure to prove its compliance with the patent marking statute.  Lubby Holdings LLC v. Henry Chung, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Sep. 1, 2021).

On August 26, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an order affirming orders from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California excluding certain opinions of plaintiff’s damages expert.  MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. August 26, 2021).  In its decision, the CAFC let stand the district court judge’s orders precluding plaintiff’s damages expert from characterizing certain license agreements as supporting his reasonable royalty rate determination.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.