Judge Albright Of The Western District Of Texas Grants Motion To Transfer On Convenience Grounds
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.
Federal Circuit Orders Transfer Of Another Judge Albright Case
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).
Northern District Of Illinois Uses Collateral Estoppel To Find Patents Invalid Based On PTAB’s Unpatentability Rulings On Similar Patents
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.
District Court Rules That Plaintiff Must Plead Facts Beyond Mere Knowledge In Complaint For Willful Infringement
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.
Federal Circuit Vacates Patent Trial And Appeal Board Decisions On CBM Proceedings Because the Challenged Patents Were For Technological Inventions And Thus Not Eligible For CBM Review
On February 13, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion vacating covered-business-method review (CBM) decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC, —F.App’x—, (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2019). The CAFC ruled that the challenged patents were not eligible for CBM review because they were for “technological inventions.”
Federal Circuit Continues To Clarify Patent Venue Rules In The Wake Of The Supreme Court’s TC Heartland Decision
Between May 8, 2018 and May 11, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a series of three opinions clarifying questions left open in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC
, which held that for purposes of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a domestic corporation “resides” only in its state of incorporation.
US Supreme Court Approves IPRS, But Requires Decision On All Challenged Claims
On April 25, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled on two cases concerning inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings: Oil States Energy Svcs. v. Green’s Energy Grp.
, case no. 16-712, and SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu
, case no. 16-969. In the first case, the Court ruled that IPRs can be a Constitutionally permissible way for the Patent Office to revoke already-issued patents, and in the second case, the Court ruled that the Patent Office is required to rule on either all or none of the patent claims challenged in a request for IPR.