Wednesday July 8, 2015
Transweb v. 3M, No. 14-1646 – Courtroom 402
3M argues that the district court abused its discretion in finding its asserted patents invalid for inequitable conduct when Transweb argues that 3M allegedly made material misrepresentations during prosecution concerning public use.
Thursday July 9, 2015
Genspara v. Mhaka, No. 15-1059 – Courtroom 201
In this appeal, Mhaka challenges the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1388 over a cross-declaratory judgment action on correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256.
Honeywell v. Nokia, No. 12-1373 – Courtroom 201
This appeal arises from a D. Delaware decision denying attorney’s fees after finding that the case was not “exceptional.” Fujifilm and Samsung argue that the case should be deemed “exceptional” under the new standard set forth in the intervening Octane Fitness and Highmark decisions.
Move v. Real Estate Alliance, No. 14-1657 – Courtroom 402
After a Federal Circuit remand, and following the Supreme Court’s decision in Akamai, the district court reinstated summary judgment of noninfringement. In this appeal, the Real Estate Alliance argues that the Federal Circuit should recognize joint liability under § 271(a).
Friday July 10, 2015
Achates Reference Publishing v. Apple, Nos. 14-1767, 14-1788 – Courtroom 201
In this appeal, Achates argues that Apple’s IPR was time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) based on privity with a time-barred co-defendant and which party bears the burden of proof. Apple argues that the Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction over a PTAB decision rejecting a time-bar challenge.
Trading Technologies v. CQG, No. 15-1277 – Courtroom 201
This appeal arises from a N.D. Illinois denial of a stay pending Covered Business Method Review (CBMR), where the claims were challenged as unpatentable under § 101. While the Federal Circuit appeal was pending, the district court trial completed, and Trading Technologies argues that the appeal is now moot.