The Federal Circuit has displayed caution regarding non-patent patent cases since Gunn v. Minton (2013), with the recent Acorda v. Alkermes case exemplifying this trend. The court transferred the matter to the Second Circuit due to a lack of jurisdiction, stating that the petitioner’s alternative non-patent claims meant federal patent issues were not 'necessarily raised.' This ruling sidetracks larger questions about the scope of the Federal Circuit's authority over patent law matters in arbitration, resulting in ambiguous guidance for lower courts and practitioners in this area.
The Federal Circuit's ruling in Acorda v. Alkermes showed reluctance to engage with non-patent patent cases, emphasizing a focus on jurisdictional limitations.
In Acorda v. Alkermes, the court determined that jurisdiction was lacking due to the alternative non-patent grounds being sufficient for relief.
The decision in Acorda v. Alkermes illustrates the Federal Circuit's narrow interpretation of jurisdiction involving patent law in arbitration cases.
The ruling leaves a gap of clarity for practitioners regarding the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction in arbitration disputes related to patent law.
Collection
[
|
...
]