Lucas Thrun

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential opinion affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding a district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint filed by AlexSam, Inc. against Aetna, Inc. AlexSam’s complaint alleged that Aetna had marketed Mastercard and VISA products that directly and indirectly infringed upon its Patent No. 6,000,608 (“’608 patent”).

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming a district court’s decision to grant the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in a contested patent case. Appellant/Plaintiff Eula Winfrey had initiated the claim in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, seeking “relief for the issue of two pillaged patents” as well as damages from the USPTO. The pro se argument was construed as having asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), respectively.

Last week, Patients for Affordable Drugs (“P4AD”) became the latest amicus to file a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Becerra et al. The case, which was lodged by the pharmaceutical giant Bristol Myers Squibb (“BMS”) and consolidated with several other pharmaceutical challenges, alleges that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) compels drug manufacturers to provide Medicare with “access” to their leading medicines at steep discounts, effectuating to an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

On August 29, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina issued an order addressing several motions in Allen v. Cooper, a case that mirrors the back-and-forth nature of an epic maritime battle—this time, between a government and an individual. The case began with an alleged copyright infringement, but has blossomed into a larger suit, alleging multiple constitutional violations.

On August 30, SoftView LLC filed a petition for en banc rehearing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), arguing that the court’s recent decision incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion to a series of amended claims. In the original ruling, which was covered in a separate article, the CAFC held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) properly applied the estoppel provision of 37 CFR § 42.73(d)(3)(i) in invalidating SoftView’s amended claims submitted in inter partes reexaminations based on a prior inter partes review (IPR) decision.