New York state issued a new mandate requiring that all travelers test negative for the COVID-19 virus both before and after coming to the state. The mandate allows travelers to bypass the 14-day quarantine and requires that non-residents, and residents who leave the state for more than 24 hours, to have proof of a negative COVID-19 test within three days of travel, quarantine for three days, and get tested again on the fourth day. If both tests return negative results, the traveler is permitted to move freely in New York. New York residents who travel to another state for 24 hours or less must take a COVID-19 test within four days of arrival. Essential workers and New York residents returning from the neighboring states of New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are exempt from the new requirements.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS

Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the District Court of New Jersey

Summary: Venue in Hatch-Waxman cases is proper only in districts where actions related to the Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) submission occur.

An amendment to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) was signed in September 2020. The CCPA regulates how large companies treat their customers’ personal information. However, the CCPA and healthcare information regulations, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) do not always agree. The CCPA targets for-profit companies, so non-profit healthcare systems and hospital networks were not the focus of the law. However, many healthcare entities were still affected because they license data to pharmaceutical and medical device companies. This data is typically provided for research (not marketing) purposes and is therefore “de-identified” (anonymized or otherwise masked to preserve scientific value while preserving individual privacy).

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. v. UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING RESEARCH

Before Newman, Lourie, and Schall. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Intrinsic evidence is sufficient support for claim construction in an interference proceeding.

IN RE: NITRO FLUIDS

Before Reyna, Wallach, and Chen. Petition for writ of mandamus to Western District of Texas.

Summary: The balance of transfer factors must favor keeping a case in a second-filed court in order to justify an exception to the first-to-file rule.

CORCAMORE, LLC v. SFM, LLC

Before Reyna, Chen, and Hughes. On appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Whether a party has satisfied the requirements to bring a petition for trademark cancellation under 15 U.S.C. §1064 is determined under the analytical framework established in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014).

AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING v. NEAPCO HOLDINGS LLC

Before Dyk, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. (AAM) sued Neapco Holdings LLC (Neapco) for infringement of AAM’s patent. The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and AAM appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to some patent claims and remanded with respect to the others, and AAM petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. AAM also moved to stay issuance of the Federal Circuit’s mandate in view of its pending petition.

TECSEC, INC., v. ADOBE INC.

Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Summary: Even if it would be objectively reasonable to view a defendant’s conduct as noninfringing, the intent element of induced infringement may still be established through the defendant’s subjective belief.

The People’s Republic of China (“China”) has introduced its first comprehensive data privacy law, which will explicitly protect the personal information of its residents. On October 21, 2020, China’s legislative body submitted a draft bill for the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”) that would prohibit businesses and enterprises from misusing the personal information of Chinese residents. Like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), the PIPL defines personal information broadly to include various types of electronic or otherwise recorded information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit found in favor of Costco in the latest chapter of an over seven-year legal battle between Tiffany and Co. (“Tiffany’s”) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”). A three judge panel overturned the $21 million award granted to Tiffany’s, after a summary judgment decision in Tiffany’s favor in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). In a unanimous decision, the court concluded that the SDNY improperly granted Tiffany’s motion for summary judgment, which prevented a jury from deciding key issues of fact. Thus, the SDNY decision was vacated and the case remanded for trial.