Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – February, 2016

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – November 2015

Author: Caitlin O’Connell
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer

Monday February 1, 2016

Rudolph Technologies v. Camtek, No. 15-1434 – Courtroom 203

In this appeal, Camtek argues that the district court erred when it reinstated the jury’s damage award based on lost profits without reevaluating the damages in light of the new, narrowed claim construction. Rudolph supports the reinstatement, arguing that damages should be re-evaluated only if they were based on the entire market value rule.

Tuesday February 2, 2016

Microsoft v. GeoTag, No. 15-1140 – Courtroom 201

This appeal arises from a District of Delaware case in which the court exercised subject matter jurisdiction based upon a theory of implied assertion of direct infringement i.e., that GeoTag’s suits against Google’s customers for infringement constituted an implied assertion of direct infringement against Google.

Huang v. Marklyn Group, No. 15-1587 – Courtroom 402

This appeal arises from a District of Colorado decision finding a design patent anticipated. Appellants argue that an incorrect jury instruction resulted in the district court impermissibly delegating the claim construction duty to the jury.

Wednesday February 3, 2016

IBM v. Intellectual Ventures II, No. 15-1837 – Courtroom 203

In this appeal, IBM argues that it was deprived of an opportunity to respond to a proposed claim construction of a previously undisputed term that Intellectual Ventures raised during oral argument. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board adopted Intellectual Venture’s construction, finding it based upon previously presented evidence.

Friday February 5, 2016

Enfish v. Microsoft, No. 15-1244 – Courtroom 201

In this appeal, Enfish asserts that Microsoft is estopped from asserting its Excel product as prior art in an IPR. Microsoft used a “printed publication” that described a software product in a prior IPR proceeding, and Enfish argues that Microsoft could have asserted the Excel product, via publications describing Excel, during the IPR proceeding in the same manner.

 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: