Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC

22-1200, 22-2223
Per Curiam

Question(s) Presented

  1. “Does the ‘objectively baseless’ standard in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), permit fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. §285 for an entire case during which the PTAB repeatedly and consistently confirmed the continuing validity of all claims of Ameranth’s ’077 patent by denying multiple petitions for CBM review and explaining why the challenged claims of the ’077 patent satisfied §101 eligibility requirements?”
  2. “Under this Court’s precedent implementing Octane Fitness, and this Court’s precedent instructing that the PTAB of the USPTO is entitled to respect and that its actions in support of validity are probative of objective reasonableness, is it legal error for a district court (1) to disregard PTAB’s repeated explanations of the challenged claims’ patent eligibility under §101 as actions probative of the objective reasonableness of continued patent enforcement; and (2) to denigrate PTAB’s repeated statements favoring the continuing validity and eligibility of the subject patents as a position that ‘no reasonable patent litigant would believe’?”

Posts About this Case