Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd., Supreme Court Docket No. No. 17-751.
- Whether the Federal Circuit has erred in holding that, for the purposes of an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), a reference “teaches away” from a proposed combination only if it expressly “criticize[s], discredit [s], or otherwise discourage[s]” the proposed combination.
- Whether inter partes review … violates the Constitution by extinguishing private party rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury. (Copy of Oil States Question)
= = = =
Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., Supreme Court Docket No. 17-697.
- Whether patents that claim a specific arrangement of technological elements, claiming apparatuses and specific methods providing a technological solution to the problem of Internet data piracy, are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 when they do not preempt alternative technological solutions.
Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 is representative:
3. A data access terminal for retrieving data from a data supplier and providing the retrieved data to a data carrier, the terminal comprising:
a first interface for communicating with the data supplier;
a data carrier interface for interfacing with the data carrier;
a program store storing code; and
a processor coupled to the first interface, the data carrier interface, and the program store for implementing the stored code, the code comprising:
code to read payment data from the data carrier and to forward the payment data to a payment validation system;
code to receive payment validation data from the payment validation system;
code responsive to the payment validation data to retrieve data from the data supplier and to write the retrieved data into the data carrier; and
code responsive to the payment validation data to receive at least one access rule from the data supplier and to write the at least one access rule into the data carrier, the at least one access rule specifying at least one condition for accessing the retrieved data written into the data carrier, the at least one condition being dependent upon the amount of payment associated with the payment data forwarded to the payment validation system.
= = = =
Chan v. Yang, Supreme Court Docket No. No. 17-311.
- Whether the USPTO had exceeded its statutory authority in declaring and conducting an interference proceeding based on claims in a pending patent application that were neither directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 nor in allowable form?
- Whether the Federal Circuit’s affirmance without opinion in appeals from USPTO’s decision violates 35 U.S.C. §144? Should the determination of which USPTO appeals require a written opinion rather than a Fed. Cir. Rule 36 Judgment depend primarily on whether the written opinion might benefit further proceedings in the case in the USPTO?
- Whether the USPTO’s practice to cancel the claims of an issued patent in an interference proceeding is unconstitutional, violating the Seventh Amendment and Article III? (Replica of Oil States Question)