Cert Denied in Oil States Follow-On Cases

Right up until currently, a host of patent conditions have been pending just before the Supreme Courtroom — hanging onto the coattails of Oil States. Pursuing complete affirmance of the IPR regime, the Supreme Courtroom has now denied certiorari in those conditions.  The one particular supplemental situation that was ripe-for-certiorari in the most modern Meeting is PNC Lender Countrywide Association  v. Safe Axcess, LLC, No. 17-350.  The courtroom issued no purchase in that situation — suggesting that it might be up for more thing to consider.  In PNC, the substantive query is “whether . . . CBM evaluation involves that the promises of the patent expressly include things like a ‘financial action factor?’”

CBM Critique Retains its Slender Scope: Narrowly Surviving En Banc Challenge

As significantly as I know, all of the Oil States adhere to-on conditions denied currently concerned a patent whose promises had been cancelled by the PTAB.  In those conditions, all appeals have now seemingly been fatigued.

Situations in which Certiorari was Denied:  

  • Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Andrei Iancu, No. 17-117, 17-232, and 17-233
  • Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 17-116
  • AT&T Intellectual House II, L.P. v. Andrei Iancu, No. 17-643
  • Audatex North The usa, Inc. v. Mitchell Intercontinental, Inc., No. 17-656
  • C-Cation Systems, LLC v. Arris Team, Inc., et al., No. 17-617
  • Celgard, LLC v. Andrei Iancu, No. 16-1526
  • Depomed, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, No. 17-114
  • Enova Technologies Corp. v. Seagate Technologies (US) Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 17-787
  • Google LLC v. Unwired Planet, LLC, No. 17-357
  • Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. v. Movea, Inc., No. 17-39
  • Hitachi Metals, Ltd. v. Alliance of Unusual-Earth Lasting Magnet Field, No. 17-768
  • Industrial Designs, Inc. v. SNF, Inc., et al., No. 17-1367
  • Integrated Statements Systems, LLC v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance policy Company, et al., No. 17-330
  • IPR Licensing, Inc. v. ZTE Company, et al., No. 17-159
  • KIP CR P1 LP, Successor in Title to Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al., No. 17-708
  • KIP CR P1 LP, Successor in Title to Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Company, et al., No. 17-707
  • Linkgine, Inc. v. VigLink, Inc., et al., No. 17-558
  • Nidec Motor Company v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd., et al., No. 17-751
  • Outdry Systems Company v. Geox S.p.A., No. 17-408
  • Paice LLC, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 17-110, 17-111, 17-112, 17-113, 17-220, 17-221, 17-222, and 17-229.
  • Security Individuals, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, et al., No. 17-214
  • Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l., et al., No. 17-349
  • TransPerfect World-wide, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, No. 17-535
  • Uniloc United states, Inc., et al. v. SEGA of The usa, Inc., et al., No. 17-1018
  • Throughout the world Oilfield Device, Inc. v. Ameriforge Team, Inc., No. 17-1043

Observe, there are a set of adhere to-on Oil States conditions without entire briefing.  In those conditions, the patentees ought to probable withdraw their petitions subsequent Oil States until boosting alternate theories for judgment.


Dennis Crouch

Shares 0

Post Author: gupta

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *