by Dennis Crouch
The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in Oil States and briefing is ramping-up in one additional case, WesternGeco, that focuses on lost profit damages for international activities.
A fairly large number of petitions for writ of certiorari are pending – however, the questions presented lack diversity. The vast majority of the pending petitions are Oil States follow-on cases that basically ask whether the post-issuance review proceedings are constitutional. Other topics of pending petitions: Dealing with ‘evidence’ in eligibility decisions; Limits on ‘teaching away’ in obviousness; apportionment of lost profit damages; assignor estoppel; defining ‘exceptional case’ for attorney fees; and whether the Federal Circuit must issue reasons for its decisions.
- R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Intermec Technologies Corporation, No. 17-980 (“proving” it is abstract).
- The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, et al. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, No. 17-997 (role of evidence in eligibility analysis)
- Nidec Motor Corporation v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd., et al., No. 17-751 (Obviousness: does ‘teaching away’ requires express criticism; also Oil States issue)
- EVE-USA, Inc., et al. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, No. 17-804 (Apportionment and Assignor Estoppel)
NOVA Chemicals Corporation (Canada), et al. v. Dow Chemical Company, No. 17-564 (attorney fees – how exceptional)
Review of PTAB:
- Google LLC v. Unwired Planet, LLC, No. 17-357 (Does the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review the PTAB determination that a patent is a “covered business method” patent; What level of deference should be given to PTAB decisions).
- PNC Bank National Association, et al. v. Secure Axcess, LLC, No. 17-350 (parallel court proceedings: when is PTAB proceeding moot?)
Rule 36 No Opinion Judgments:
- Celgard, LLC v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 16-1526 (“Does the Federal Circuit’s issuance of Rule 36 judgments without opinions for the disposition of appeals from the Patent Office violates 35 U.S.C. § 144’s requirement that the Federal Circuit ‘shall issue’ its ‘mandate and opinion’ for such appeals?”; Also Oil States issues)
- C-Cation Technologies, LLC v. Arris Group, Inc., et al., No. 17-617 (also raises Oil States issues)
- Integrated Claims Systems, LLC v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance Company, et al., No. 17-330 (also raises Oil States issues)
- Petter Investments, dba Riveer v. Hydro Engineering, No. 17-1055
Oil States Follow-On
- Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. SEGA of America, Inc., et al., No. 17-1018
- Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc. v. Ameriforge Group, Inc., No. 17-1043
- KIP CR P1 LP, Successor in Title to Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation, et al., No. 17-707 and 17-708 (Response Requested by SCOTUS)
- Hitachi Metals, Ltd. v. Alliance of Rare-Earth Permanent Magnet Industry, No. 17-768 (Response Requested)
- Enova Technology Corp. v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 17-787 (Response Requested)
- AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 17-643
- Audatex North America, Inc. v. Mitchell International, Inc., No. 17-656
- Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. v. Movea, Inc., No. 17-39
- Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 17-117; 17-232; 17-232
- Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 17-116
- IPR Licensing, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation, et al., No. 17-159
- Paice LLC, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 17-221; 17-220; 17-229; 17-112; 17-113; 17-111; 17-110; and 17-222.
- Security People, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al., No. 17-214
- Outdry Technologies Corporation v. Geox S.p.A., No. 17-408
- Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l., et al., No. 17-349
- TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 17-535