1. “Statutory deadlines—like limitations periods—are mere non-jurisdictional ‘claim-processing rules’ unless Congress provides a clear statement that the rule is intended to have jurisdictional effect. Here, I.R.C. § 7422(a) provides that...
1. “Whether the district court erred in granting JMOL based on its conclusions that the skilled artisan ‘would have to undertake undue experimentation to find a “unit dosage” that would...
1. “Whether the district court erred by finding the ’993 patent, ’854 patent, and ’356 patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
2. “Whether the district court erred in its construction...
Appeal:
“Whether prejudgment interest for a lump sum reasonable royalty damages award should be calculated from the time of the hypothetical negotiation, which coincides with the date of first infringement, or...
1. “Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment of patent eligibility, even though the inventor conceded that his invention is the black- box mathematical operation of optimizing a...
1. ”Whether the Commission erred in concluding that Masimo established an existing domestic industry, including by:”
a. “holding Masimo satisfied the technical prong, even though the item identified in the complaint...
“Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine, and hence the separation of powers principle of the Constitution, by granting to the Director of the USPTO unbounded discretion to deny institution of...
“[W]hether the USPTO erred when it denied appellant’s petition to cancel appellee’s trademark registration, on the basis that appellant had failed to properly raise whether a likelihood of confusion existed...
1. “Whether the trial court erred in holding that it possesses jurisdiction to entertain Ligado’s takings claims despite the Communications Act’s comprehensive remedial scheme.”
2. “Whether the trial court erred in...
1. “Did the USPTO violate the Constitution’s separation of powers, the America Invents Act (‘AIA’), and the APA by denying institution based solely on a preference for ex parte reexamination?”
2....
1. “Did the USPTO violate due process by retroactively applying new institution rules to IPR petitions, after they had been paid for and filed, in a manner that destroyed their...
1. “Whether the district court erred as a matter of law in holding, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, that claims to laboratory-made host cells genetically engineered to contain DNA from...
“Whether, by adopting the NHK-Fintiv Rule without notice-and-comment rulemaking, the Director violated (1) the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553, and (2) the AIA, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(2), (4).”
Appeal:
1. “Does 28 U.S.C. § 1498 enable the Government to consent to patent infringement by AeroVironment where such consent breaches its contractual and statutory obligations to Lite, a Phase III...
1. “Whether the implicit denial doctrine is inapplicable to a claim subject to the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) because the AMA’s notice requirements, statutory structure, and principles of due process...
“Whether the [Court of International Trade] abused its discretion in denying the parties’ joint motion to redact information submitted to the Commission under a promise of confidentiality and determined by...
1. “[T]he United States International Trade Commission (‘Commission’ or ‘ITC’) respectfully requests that this Court enter a writ of mandamus ordering the United States Court of International Trade (‘CIT’ or...
1. “Is the USPTO’s decision to deny Google’s petitions immune from judicial review where the decision—by the agency’s own admission—is not within the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) as...
1. “Did the Commission err in determining that the Defaulting Respondents did not violate Section 337 [of the Tariff Act] as the sole basis for denying Crocs’s request for a...
