Celgard, LLC v. Matal, No. 16-1526
Cert. petition filed 6/19/17.
Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software LLC, No. 16-1505
The following important question of federal law is presented:
Whether direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) occurs as a necessary result when multiple independent entities each perform one or more steps of a patented method in the practice thereof without authority?
The Petitioner answers this question in the affirmative. This Court on certiorari in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014) reversed and remanded the Federal Circuit decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Akamai II”) noting that “the Federal Circuit will have the opportunity to revisit the § 271(a) question if it so chooses”. On remand the Federal Circuit en banc in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 102 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Akamai IV”), ultimately overruled the single-entity precedents: Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008); and BMC Resources, Inc. V. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, it appears as a necessary conclusion that the Federal Circuit has adhered to those overruled single-entity precedents in affirming without opinion the district court's denial of relief from a judgment declaration of non-infringement.
Cert. petition filed 6/13/17.
Lakshmi-Arunachalam v. SAP America, Inc., No. 16-1442
Cert. petition filed 5/25/17, waiver of respondent SAP America, Inc. filed 6/15/17, conference 9/25/17.
No CAFC Opinion (appeal dismissed), No CAFC Argument
Oleksy v. General Electric Co., No. 16-1427
Should this Court exercise its supervisory power to reverse Federal Circuit's affirmance without an opinion of a non-infringement decisin which was based on district court's patent claim construction that departed from several well-established fundamental principles of patent law, namely that:
Cert. petition filed 5/30/17, waiver of respondent General Electric Company filed 6/9/17, conference 9/25/17.
No CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. 16-1288
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Court reaffirmed the two-part test for determining whether an invention is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101: (1) whether the patent claims are directed to a patent ineligible concept, such as laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas, and (2), if so, whether the elements of the claim contain an “inventive concept” that transforms the ineligible concept into an invention that is patent-eligible. Here, a panel of the Federal Circuit held that in determining whether a patent is directed to an abstract idea, a court must ignore the specification and evaluate only the express limitations in the claims. The panel further held that the accused patents failed the second step of Alice because the claims do not explicitly call for involvement of a computer and therefore could not be characterized as an improvement to computers.
The questions presented are:
Cert. petition filed 4/27/17, conference 9/25/17.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-1102
This petition presents three questions of great importance to patent law that arise from the decisions of a deeply divided Federal Circuit:
Cert. petition filed 3/10/17, CVSG 6/26/17.
WilmerHale represents respondent Apple Inc.
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 16-1011
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), it is an act of patent infringement to supply “components of a patented invention,” “from the United States,” knowing or intending that the components be combined “outside of the United States,” in a manner that “would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States.”
Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, patent owners who prevail in litigation are entitled to “damages adequate to compensate for the infringement.”
In this case, despite affirming that Respondent was liable for infringement under § 271(f), the majority of a divided panel of the court of appeals held that Petitioner was not entitled to lost profits caused by the proscribed combination. The court of appeals reasoned that even when Congress has overridden the presumption against extraterritorial application of the law in creating liability, the presumption must be applied a second time to restrict damages.
The question presented is:
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).
Cert. petition filed 2/17/17, conference 5/25/17, CVSG 5/30/17.