Category Archives: Upcoming Arguments

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

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – November 2016

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – November 2016

Authors: Jack Li*
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer

Tuesday November 1, 2016

ArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corporation, No. 16-1357, Court Room 402

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will answer the question of whether an unconditional covenant not to sue for infringement of a patent-in-suit deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity of claims in the same patent. After two earlier appeals and a reissue, two claims survived in ArcelorMittal’s originally asserted patent. ArcelorMittal moved to dismiss the case and offered an unconditional covenant not to sue Defendants on the remaining two claims. The District Court nevertheless ruled on Defendants’ invalidity counterclaim and found the remaining claims invalid. ArcelorMittal argues that the covenant not to sue eliminated any possible case or controversy between the parties with respect to the two remaining claims of the patent and therefore deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over Defendants’ counterclaims. Continue reading