-
Federal Circuit Lacks Jurisdiction Over Interlocutory Appeal Of Order Denying In-House Counsel Access To Opposing Party’s Source Code
01/18/2023
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.
-
Eastern District Of Texas Magistrate Recommends Denying Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Perfect Service Of Process
09/30/2022
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.
-
U.S. District Court For The Northern District of Illinois Finds Patent Claims Related To HIV DNA Replication To Be Patent Eligible Under Section 101
12/08/2020
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.