In Re Queen’s University at Kingston, No. 15-145 – Courtroom 201
This mandamus petition challenges the district court’s decision to compel production of communications between Petitioners’ employees and their non-lawyer registered patent agents concerning prosecution of certain patents-in-suit. The parties dispute whether a “patent agent privilege” exists that should shield the documents from production.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
High Point SARL v. T-Mobile USA, No. 15-1235 and High Point SARL v. Sprint Nextel, No. 15-1298 – Courtroom 201
These appeals relate to High Point’s separate infringement suits against T-Mobile and Sprint Nextel. In Case No. 15-1235, High Point challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment that licenses covering the patents-in-suit authorized sales to T-Mobile and exhausted High Point’s patent rights. In Case No. 15-1298, High Point challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment that its claims are barred by equitable estoppel and laches.
Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) v. ITC, No. 14-1478 –Courtroom 201
In this appeal, Sino Legend argues that the ITC erroneously held that Section 337 applies to importation of articles made using U.S. trade secrets that two Sino Legend employees allegedly misappropriated in China. Sino Legend asserts that the Federal Circuit’s 2011 decision inTianRui Grp. v. ITC, which addresses this issue, conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and should be reconsidered.
Hewlett-Packard v. MPHJ Tech. Investments, No. 15-1427 – Courtroom 402
In this IPR appeal, HP challenges the PTAB’s decision not to institute review based on an obviousness ground that the PTAB concluded was redundant. HP argues that the PTAB lacks authority to refuse to address a properly presented ground for invalidity and that neither 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) nor Federal Circuit precedent bars review of this aspect of the PTAB’s decision. The USPTO has intervened in this case.
Friday, December 11, 2015
The Ohio Willow Wood Company v. Alps South, No. 15-1132 – Courtroom 402
The Ohio Willow Wood Company challenges the district court’s ruling that one of its employees committed inequitable conduct by allegedly withholding certain documents during a reexamination. Ohio Willow Wood argues that the evidence did not support the court’s inference that the employee intended to deceive the USPTO.