Category Archives: Upcoming Arguments

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – February 2017

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – February 2017

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

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Allergan v. Sandoz, No. 16-1085, Courtroom 201

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will determine whether collateral estoppel can bar a party from asserting an infringement claim when, in previous litigation between the parties, a patent in the same family and covering the same product was held invalid.  Allergan argues that collateral estoppel should not apply in this case because the issue of the validity of the eyelash growth and eyelash darkness claims is not “identical.”  Sandoz argues that collateral estoppel should apply in this case because the two sets of claims are “substantially similar,” thus the issue is “identical.”
Continue reading

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – January 2017

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – December 2016

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

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Golden Bridge Technology v. Apple, No. 16-1537, Courtroom 201

In this appeal arising from the N.D. Cal., the Federal Circuit is tasked with deciding whether Octane Fitness effectively overturned Shum v. Intel Corp. on the issue of awarding costs when there is more than one “prevailing party.”  Golden Bridge argues that Shum established the type of “overly restrictive” framework that Octane Fitness rejected and that the district court judge should have discretion in awarding costs.  Apple argues that Octane Fitness only addressed the “exceptional case” standard and is thus inapplicable. Continue reading

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – December 2016

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – December 2016

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

Monday December 5, 2016

Voxathon v. FCA, No. 16-1614, Courtroom 201

This decision arises from a E.D. Tex. case in which the court held that Voxathon’s claims directed to a telephone set with multiple call appearance buttons were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Voxathon argues that the district court erred not only in holding that the claims were directed to an abstract idea, but also incorrectly shifted the burden for the second step of the § 101 analysis to Voxathon, the patentee, to establish that an inventive concept was present. Continue reading