Other Cases to Watch

Search By
Status
Subject
58 Cases
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Issue(s) Presented
Appeal No.
20-1399
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
“Whether the unusual structure for instituting and funding AIA post-grant reviews violates the Due Process Clause in view of Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), and its progeny, which...
Appeal No.
20-1734
Subject
TaxAmicus
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
“[W]hether the U.S. Court of International Trade erred when it held the [Rule promulgated by the Department of the Treasury in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirming the...
Appeal No.
20-1735
Subject
Death Benefit2 Amici
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
“Whether it is unlawful for the federal government to rely on a state’s concededly unconstitutional definition of marriage to deny survivor benefits to the surviving member of a long-term, committed...
Appeal No.
20-1413
Subject
Patent3 Amici
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
1. “Did the district court err in excluding evidence of comparable-license negotiations under the parol-evidence rule in a Georgia-Pacific analysis and the resulting royalty opinions?” 2. “Did the district court err...
Appeal No.
18-1976
Subject
Patent11 Amici
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
“Whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Teva willfully induced infringement of GSK’s patented method of treating congestive heart failure where: (a) Teva encouraged the infringing use in promotional...
Appeal No.
20-2067
Subject
Veterans2 Amici
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
“Did the holding in Ortiz v. Principi misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 by setting forth an equipose-of-the-evidence [sic] standard for veterans to prove their claims...
Appeal No.
19-2164
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
1. “Did the district court err in concluding that it cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over PerDiemCo even though (a) PerDiemCo expressly and repeatedly accused Trimble, a company based in northern...
Appeal No.
20-1637
Subject
VeteransAmicus
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
“Whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein...
Appeal No.
20-1441
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
“Whether the unusual structure for instituting and funding AIA post-grant reviews violates the Due Process Clause in view of Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), and its progeny, which...
Appeal No.
20-1107
Subject
TakingsAmicus
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
“Whether the Government commits a categorical physical taking when it uses its legislative authority to require the abandonment or total destruction of lawfully acquired personal property.” “Whether the Government commits a...
Appeal No.
20-1921
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
“Whether the Board erred by rejecting Petitioner’s own expert’s claim construction of ‘wearable’ in the Patents’ context as ‘unobtrusive and easily hidden’ (like performer bodypacks are), and further erred by...
Appeal No.
19-2039
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
1. “Whether, in determining that Patent No. 6,477,151 (the ‘151’, or the ‘’151 Patent’) is unenforceable, the district court committed an error of law in failing to apply a ‘but...
Appeal No.
21-1638
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
“Whether in the instant action, the validity challenges brought by Samsung in the PTAB fall under the forum selection clause (‘FSC’) of the parties’ NDA because the validity challenges ‘relate...
Appeal No.
20-1715
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
1. “Whether contractual language providing that patents ‘shall be the property of [an employing entity, here, the University of Michigan],’ without requiring any further acts from the parties, operates as...
Appeal No.
20-1479
Subject
VeteransAmicus
Status
Pending
Issue(s) Presented
“[W]hether the part of 38 C.F.R. § 3.654(b)(2) (regulation 3.654(b)(2)), limiting the resumption of payment of disability benefits to ‘the day following release from active duty if [a] claim for...
Appeal No.
20-1834
Subject
JurisdictionAmicus
Status
Decided
Issue(s) Presented
“Whether, for the purpose of a jurisdictional ruling prior to hearing, the Board erred in failing to consider whether Dr. Tao had engaged in protected activity under 5 U.S.C. §...
Appeal No.
20-1072
Subject
Veterans2 Amici
Status
Decided
Issue(s) Presented
Whether “[t]he Veterans Court’s ‘direct relationship’ requirement is an erroneous legal standard for determining what facts are before the Board because it excludes relevant matters that are known or should...
Appeal No.
21-112
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Decided
Issue(s) Presented
“Whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to apply the first-to- file rule by: (1) erroneously concluding that the WDTX’s decision regarding the ’606 patent could conflict with the...
Appeal No.
20-1074
Subject
Patent4 Amici
Status
Decided
Issue(s) Presented
“Whether the district court erred in holding that any reasonable juror was required to find that Sanofi-Regeneron established non-enablement by clear-and- convincing evidence.”
Appeal No.
20-1305
Subject
Veterans4 Amici
Status
Decided
Issue(s) Presented
“Did the CAVC misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(2) in holding that a five-year delay in deciding a disabled veteran’s administrative appeal does not amount to an unreasonable delay.” “Did the CAVC...