Federal Circuit Lacks Jurisdiction Over Interlocutory Appeal Of Order Denying In-House Counsel Access To Opposing Party’s Source Code
On December 29, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an interlocutory appeal of an order by the District of Utah maintaining the confidentiality of defendant’s source code and denying access by plaintiff’s in-house counsel. Modern Font Applications LLC v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., No. 2021-1838 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 29, 2022). The Federal Circuit found that the district court decision did not satisfy the factors of the collateral order doctrine so as to permit interlocutory review because the order would be reviewable after a final judgment.
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Decision Related To Estoppel Over IPR Joined Parties And Obviousness
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.
Federal Circuit Vacates And Remands For Dismissal District Court’s Jurisdictional Finding That Parties’ Claims Arose Under U.S. Patent Law
On September 18, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion vacating and remanding the jurisdictional finding of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Inspired Development Group, LLC v. Inspired Products Group, LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2019). The CAFC ruled that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties’ claims did not arise under the patent laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).