WilmerHale compiles lists of certiorari petitions that raise patent-law issues. This page contains a consolidated list of all recently granted petitions, organized in reverse chronological order by date of certiorari petition.
WildTangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC, et al., No. 13-255 Question Presented:
When is a patent's reference to a computer, or computer-implemented service like the Internet, sufficient to make an unpatentable abstract concept patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
Cert. petition filed 8/23/13, waiver by respondent Ultramercial, LLC filed 11/6/13, conference 12/6/13, response requested 12/6/13, conference 1/24/14, conference 6/26/14, GVR 6/30/14.
CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument
Kobe Properties Sarl, et al. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., No. 13-788 Questions Presented:
The Patent Act provides that a "court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party." 35 U.S.C. § 285. Recent decisions by the Federal Circuit have held that, in the absence of litigation misconduct or misconduct in securing the patent, a case can be deemed "exceptional" if it is both objectively baseless and brought in bad faith. After living with this case for more than ten years, including overseeing a two-week jury trial, the District Court found that this case was objectively baseless and brought in bad faith, and awarded the defendants all of their fees. In its very first application of its decision in Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 687 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit panel gave no deference to the District Court's objective baselessness and exceptional case determinations and reversed. App. 15. The Federal Circuit subsequently denied rehearing and rehearing en banc.
The questions presented are:[FN1]
FN1. These are the same questions presented in the petitions for writ of certiorari filed in Highmark, supra, and in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184. This Court granted certiorari in both of those cases on October 1, 2013, 134 S. Ct. 48 (2013), 134 S. Ct. 49 (2013), and they are now pending before this Court.
Whether a district court's exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, based on its judgment that a suit is objectively baseless, is entitled to deference. More broadly, whether the Federal Circuit's above-described two-part test for determining whether a case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 improperly appropriates a district court's...
