LITIGATION TRENDS 2025 | 95 T O C E M P E S G A N T I I P C A P R O W C S P O R T C O N T A C T I N T A P P P A T C C L S E C a fair trial, and prevent unfair manipulation of the legal process. Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect Inc. also involved IP Edge and Mavexar, with the district court working to uncover IP Edge’s role in litigation over patents nominally owned by various LLCs. 107 F.4th 1335 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2024). The district court investigated Backertop Licensing’s ownership structure, revealing layers of corporate entities that obscured the true decisionmakers (i.e., IP Edge). Backertop Licensing and the named patent owner appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s power to investigate the identity and relationship of unnamed parties outside of its district, emphasizing the authority to investigate potential misconduct, including fraud on the court. By requiring full disclosure of controlling entities, courts ensure that the playing field is level and that obfuscation of relevant facts to provide anonymity does not result in strategic gain. These cases highlight the potential for abuse when true parties-in-interest, particularly controlling non-parties, remain hidden. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s contempt finding and sanctions order confirms the district court’s power to investigate potential fraud on the court. There is a growing call for stricter disclosure requirements and enforcement mechanisms to ensure transparency and fairness in patent litigation. This transparency not only promotes fairness but also enhances the credibility and integrity of the judicial system, ultimately benefiting all stakeholders involved in patent litigation. P A T Patent Litigation 94 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI5NDgyMg==