Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending (March 2015)

WilmerHale compiles lists of certiorari petitions that raise patent-law issues. This page contains a consolidated list of all recently pending petitions, organized in reverse chronological order by date of certiorari petition.

Cyclone Microsystems, Inc. v. Internet Machines, LLC, No. 14-1043 Question Presented:

Under controlling Supreme Court precedent, a patentee seeking to recover for patent infringement "must in every case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the defendant's profits and the patentee's damages between the patented feature and the unpatented features." Here, in conflict with that important precedent, the District Court, over the Petitioners' objections, permitted the patentee to obtain royalties on both patented and unpatented features, holding that, because the patentee's expert "used the smallest salable unit as his royalty base, additional apportionment is unwarranted and the narrow exception of the entire market value rule is inapplicable." On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the damages award based on that model. Was it proper for the Federal Circuit to sanction a damages award that is in direct conflict with this Court's controlling precedent?

Cert. petition filed 1/23/15.

CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument

EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-978 Questions Presented:

Under controlling law in the court below, motions to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) are governed by an application of the "Gilbert" factors used in forum non conveniens determinations as established in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947). The questions presented are:

Is a writ of mandamus appropriate to review a trial court's exercise of discretion to deny a transfer motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)? 2. Did the Federal Circuit err by issuing a writ of mandamus to reverse the district court's denial of transfer based solely on the Federal Circuit's disagreement with the manner in which the district court applied the Gilbert factors? Cert. petition filed 2/12/15, waiver of respondent Apple Inc. filed 1/23/15.

CAFC Opinion

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.

CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument

WilmerHale represents petitioner Broadcom.

Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Retractable Technologies, Inc., No. 14-850 Questions Presented:

Where a jury uses a general verdict form to award damages, and at least one but not all of the claims submitted to the jury is set aside on appeal, are further proceedings to recalculate damages required under the general verdict rule? To benefit from the general verdict rule following a partial reversal on appeal, must a litigant object to the general verdict form and invoke the general verdict rule in advance of a partial reversal (as four courts of appeal have held), or are these steps unnecessary (as five courts of appeals have held)? Cert. petition filed 1/16/15, waiver by respondents Retractable Technologies, Inc., et al. filed 1/23/15, response requested 2/10/15.

CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument

WilmerHale represents petitioner Becton Dickinson and Co.

Albecker v. Contour Products, Inc., No. 14-860 Question Presented:

The Court is now addressing the question regarding "deference" previously raised as the second question in Retractable Techs. v. New Med. Techs., Supreme Court No. 11-1154 (cert denied 2013). Petitioner would submit that the first question raised in Retractable is even more important, as it is goes to the underlying problem which the "deference" question alone cannot address, and it further raises substantial constitutional issues.

The Question Presented is as follows:

Whether a court may depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of a term in a patent claim based on language in the patent specification, where the patentee has neither expressly disavowed the plain meaning of the claim term nor expressly defined the term in a way that differs from its plain meaning.

Cert. petition filed 1/14/15.

CAFC Opinion

CEATS, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc., No. 14-681 Question Presented:

Petitioner CEATS, Inc. ("Petitioner" or "CEATS") engaged in court-ordered mediation with a mediator who had an undisclosed close, enduring...