Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied (January 2016)
Originally published January 27, 2016
WilmerHale compiles lists of certiorari petitions that raise patent-law issues. This page contains a consolidated list of all recently denied petitions, organized in reverse chronological order by date of certiorari petition.
Apls South, LLC v. The Ohio Willow Wood Company, No. 15-567
Questions Presented:
This case presents three related questions for review:
-
When post-complaint events establish plaintiff's prudential standing, may plaintiff cure a prudential standing defect existing when the original complaint was filed by filing a supplemental complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), or must it file a new case to assert its claim for relief?
-
If a district court exercises its discretion to allow a supplemental complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), does the supplemental complaint become the operative complaint from which plaintiff's prudential standing to bring the action is determined?
-
Where an exclusive licensee acquires all substantial rights in a patent after bringing an infringement action, and it files a supplemental complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), after acquiring those rights, does the exclusive licensee have prudential standing to proceed with a patent infringement action in only its name, when it did not own all substantial rights in the patent when it originally brought the infringement action?
Cert. petition filed 10/29/15, conference 1/15/16. Petition denied 1/19/16.
CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument
Arunachalam v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 15-691
Questions Presented:
-
Is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") permitted to create a new protected classa giant corporationto take private property for public use without any compensation to the inventor, an icon of America Invents (who invented Web applications displayed on a Web browser, in ubiquitous use worldwide, from which the giant corporation has financially benefited excessively), by denying the inventor the protections of the Bill of Rights and 35 U.S.C § 282 of the Patent Act, thereby voiding the judgment?
-
Whether the CAFC erred in not honoring the law, after abridging liberty rights of a citizen, arbitrarily dismissing the appeal without a hearing or an opening brief or clear and convincing evidence from a giant corporation, depriving the citizen of patent property rights, was the citizen deprived of the protections of 35 U.S.C. § 282 of the Patent Act and the Bill of Rights, thereby voiding the judgment?
-
Whether the CAFC erred in not relieving a citizen of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial