by Dennis Crouch
1. Petition Granted:
- Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al., No. 14-1513 (enhanced damages) (linked to Stryker)
- Stryker Corporation, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., No. 14-1520 (enhanced damages) (linked to Halo)
2. Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pending:
- Life Technologies Corporation, et al. v. Promega Corporation, No. 14-1538 (Can an entity “induce itself” under 271(f)(1)?)(CVSG)
- Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-538 (“Do patent claims addressed directly to software that is inherently in a computer-readable medium qualify as a ‘manufacture’ under 35 U.S.C. § 101 without express recitation of the medium?”)
- OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 15-642 (Do the rules of civil procedure apply when defendant raises a Section 101 eligibility “defense” in a motion-to-dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted?)
- Fivetech Technology Inc. v. Southco, Inc., No. 15-381 (What is the proper role of intrinsic evidence in claim construction?)
- Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., et al. v. NuVasive, Inc., No. 15-85 (Commil re-hash – mens rea requirement for inducement)
- SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., No. 15-461 (Kessler doctrine – enhanced preclusion)
- Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Michelle K. Lee, No. 15-446 (BRI construction in IPRs; institution decisions unreviewable).
- Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., No. 15-559 (Commil re-hash – if actions were “not objectively unreasonable” can they constitute inducement?)
- Alps South, LLC v. The Ohio Willow Wood Company, No. 15-567 (If patent ownership is fixed after the filing of a complaint, can jurisdiction be cured by a supplemental complaint)
- STC, Inc. v. Global Traffic Technologies, No. 15-592 (Whether marking the packaging of a patented article with patent notification satisfies the marking provision of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) where the patented article itself is undisputedly capable of being marked.)
- Retirement Capital Access Management Company, LLC v. U.S. Bancorp, et al., No. 15-591 (Whether subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a ground specified as a condition for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2))
- Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, et al., No. 15-607 (Whether AIA eliminated federal district courts’ jurisdiction over patent interference actions under 35 U.S.C. § 146.)
- ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 15-639 (what happens with a finally-determined permanent injunction after PTO cancels the patent claim?)
- Interval Licensing LLC v. Michelle K. Lee, No. 15-716 (Can the Patent and Trademark Office appropriately apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in construing patent claims in post-grant validity challenges?)
- Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capitol One Financial Corporation, et al., No. 15-725 (Claim Construction: whether there a strong presumption against construing terms as subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112p6 that do not recite the term “means.”)
- Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. v. Michelle K. Lee, No. 15-652 (Patent Term Adjustment – whether the 180 day deadline applies)
- Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., et al., No. 15-635 (Stryker/Halo follow-on)
- Morgan, et al. v. Global Traffic Technologies LLC, No. 15-602 (unclear)
- Arunachalam v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 15-691 (unclear)