United States:
Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Granted (June 2015)
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
WilmerHale compiles lists of certiorari petitions that raise
patent-law issues. This page contains a consolidated list of all
recently granted petitions, organized in reverse chronological
order by date of certiorari petition.
CSR PLC v. Azure Networks,
LLC, No. 14-976
Question Presented:
Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
err in using a de novo standard of review instead of a "clear
error" standard of review in reviewing the factual findings
made by the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas while construing the term "MAC Address" as used
in U.S. Patent No. 7,756,129?
Cert. petition filed 2/4/15, conference 4/17/15, GVR
4/20/15.
CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument
WilmerHale represents petitioner Broadcom.
|
Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., No. 14-206
Question Presented:
Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
in matters tried to a district court, the court's
"[f]indings of fact...must not be set aside unless clearly
erroneous."
The question presented is as follows:
Whether a district court's factual findings in support of
its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as
the Federal Circuit currently requires, or only for clear error, as
Rule 52(a) requires.
Cert. petition filed 8/18/14, conference 10/31/14, conference
1/23/15, GVR 1/26/15.
CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument
|
Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Universal Lighting
Technologies, Inc., No. 13-1536
Questions Presented:
In Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448
(Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc), the Federal Circuit construed this
Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments,
Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), to hold that patent claim
construction presents a purely legal question subject to de novo
review. In this case, the Federal Circuit granted en banc review to
reconsider the widely criticized Cybor rule. In a 6-4
decision, it decided to adhere to its precedent on stare decisis
grounds, which hold no sway in this Court. Shortly after the
decision, this Court granted the petition for certiorari in
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854
(Mar. 31, 2014), to consider the validity of the Cybor
rule.
This petition presents the same question presented in
Teva. It also presents a second question that will be
squarely implicated if the Court, in Teva, affirms the
Cybor rule. That question arises from Respondent's
failure to raise the claim construction arguments on which it
ultimately prevailed below (which are purely legal issues per
Cybor) in a motion for judgment as a matter of law after
they were previously rejected on summary judgment. The courts of
appeals are starkly divided as to whether there is an exception for
"purely legal" issues to the general rule that issues
raised in a failed summary judgment motion and not renewed in a
motion for JMOL are forfeited, a question this Court expressly left
open in Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (2011).
The questions presented are:
-
Whether a district court's factual finding in support of its
construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the
Federal Circuit requires, or only for clear error, as Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires.
-
Whether there is an exception for "purely legal" issues
to the general rule that an issue raised only in a failed summary
judgment motion and not raised in a motion for judgment as a matter
of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 is forfeited on
appeal.
Cert. petition filed 6/20/14, conference 9/29/14, conference
1/23/15, GVR 1/26/15.
CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument
|
To continue reading, please click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Intellectual Property from United States