Monday March 7, 2016

Advanced Ground Information Systems v. Life360, 15-1732 – Courtroom 203

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will have the opportunity to further clarify the impact of Williamson v. Citrix Online on means-plus-function claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The patent holder argues that the district court erred in concluding that the claim terms “symbol generator” and “CPU software” invoked § 112, ¶ 6.

Tuesday March 8, 2016

Sasol North America v. GTLpetrol, No. 15-1762 – Courtroom 402

In this case, a declaratory judgment plaintiff appeals from a district court decision dismissing the declaratory judgment action. The DJ plaintiff argues that a DJ defendant’s remarks that it does “not intend to pursue claims” against the plaintiff are insufficient to divest the district court of declaratory judgment jurisdiction.

Friday March 11, 2016

U.S. Ethernet Innovations v. Texas Instruments, No. 15-1510; -1541 – Courtroom 402

In this appeal, the patent holder challenges the district court’s decision to apply collateral estoppel based upon a decision in another district court holding the patent invalid. The patent holder argues the validity determination in the present case was already final before the district court applied collateral estoppel, and therefore, collateral estoppel was inappropriate.

Adaptix v. Apple, No. 15-1441; -1462, -1463, -1442, 1464, 1465 – Courtroom 203

In this case, the patent holder, Adaptix, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. Adaptix argues that, following Muniauction v. Thomson, the defendants control the performance of the patented method because they cause their customers’ products to perform certain steps of the claims. In response, defendants argue, among other things, that the district court decision should be affirmed because the claimed steps can only be performed, if at all, by a third party’s operation of a device in that third party’s possession.

In re TC Heartland, No. 16-105 – Courtroom 201

On petition for writ of mandamus, the petitioner seeks an order directing the district court to dismiss or transfer the case. Petitioner argues that the Federal Circuit’s decision in VE Holdings v. Johnson Gas Appliance, holding that patent suits can be brought anywhere the defendant makes sales, should be overruled because of subsequent revisions to the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and (c).