by Dennis Crouch

This is my third post about SnapPower (SnapRays) v. Lighting Defense, and the Federal Circuit's holding that patentee's who use Amazon's patent enforcement process (APEX) to block infringing product sales open themselves to personal jurisdiction in the home state of the accused infringer. SnapPower v. Lighting Def. Group, 100 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2024). In my view, the Federal Circuit has gone too far with aggressive personal jurisdiction in this case, and the patentee Lighting Defense has petitioned for en banc rehearing on the issue.

• Discussion of the Original Decision.
• Discussion of the En Banc Petition.

Most recently, toy-maker Lovevery has filed an amicus brief supporting en banc review.

Guest post by Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Distinguished Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Innovation Policy at Duke Law

In a flurry of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has continued its skepticism of administrative agencies.  Although these decisions may not have as significant an impact in patent law as in other areas, they do pose interesting puzzles with respect to stare decisis as well as agency rulemaking and discretion that will provide many litigation opportunities going forward.

by Dennis Crouch

Although not a patent case, Feliciano v. Department of Transportation merits attention as one of only two Federal Circuit cases granted certiorari for the October 2024 Supreme Court term, alongside the veterans benefits case of Bufkin v. McDonough.

In Feliciano, the Supreme Court will consider whether federal civilian employees who are called to active military duty are entitled to differential pay even if their service is not directly connected to a declared national emergency. The case stems from the Federal Circuit's interpretation of the differential pay statute, 5 U.S.C. § 5538, which requires federal agencies to provide supplemental pay to federal employees called to active duty when their military salary is less than their civilian salary.

by Dennis Crouch

In Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed the scope of a district court's inherent authority to investigate potential litigation misconduct. Chief Judge Connolly of the District of Delaware had initiated an inquiry into dozens of patent infringement cases filed by plaintiff LLCs associated with IP Edge, a patent monetization firm, and Mavexar, an affiliated consulting shop. The district court was concerned that the real parties in interest may have been concealed, that fictitious patent assignments were filed with the USPTO to shield those parties from liability, and that the plaintiff LLCs' attorneys may have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by taking direction from Mavexar without their formal-clients' informed consent.

by Dennis Crouch

In the recent case of Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Insall, No. 23-1888 (7th Cir.  July 12, 2024), the Seventh Circuit affirmed an arbitration award requiring Zimmer to continue paying royalties to the estate of Dr. John Insall even after the expiration of the underlying patents.  This decision highlights the significant deference afforded to arbitration agreements and the limited ability of courts to vacate arbitral awards, even when they conflict with Supreme Court precedent.

The key precedents underlying the dispute in Zimmer v. Insall are Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964) and Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446 (2015). In Brulotte, the Supreme Court held that "a patentee's use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se."