Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

Supreme Court Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
506 Petitions
Docket No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Docket No.
19-1061
Case
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Company
Subject
Patent3 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Under Festo’s ‘tangential’ exception to prosecution history estoppel, patent owners may recapture subject matter they could have claimed in prosecution but did not, by arguing that they surrendered more than...
Docket No.
19-1058
Case
Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a patentee may recapture subject matter via the doctrine of equivalents under the ‘tangential relation’ exception by arguing that it surrendered more than it needed to during prosecution to...
Docket No.
19-103
Case
Strikeforce Technologies, Inc. v. SecureAuth Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), this Court explained a two-step test for determining whether a patent claim is directed to patent...
Docket No.
19-1026
Case
Ford Motor Co. v. United States
Subject
Trade4 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding, contrary to this Court’s precedent, that a product’s post-importation modification and use can determine its classification under a tariff heading that is...
Docket No.
19-1017
Case
Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Does Alice’s step one require that the claims be viewed as a whole and that consideration be given to the claimed advance over the prior...
Docket No.
19-1012
Case
General Electric Co. v. United Technologies, Corp.
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether competitive harm alone suffices to confer Article III standing to appeal an IPR determination, or whether an appellant must also show concrete plans for future activity that creates a...
Docket No.
19-101
Case
Imperium IP Holdings, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Subject
Procedure2 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“The question presented is whether an appellate court may reverse a jury verdict based on its own view that expert testimony was credible, ‘unrebutted,’ and ‘uncontradicted,’ or instead whether the...
Docket No.
19-1002
Case
Automotive Body Parts Ass'n v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“How should the article of manufacture be determined when applying the patent exhaustion and repair doctrines in design patent cases?”
Docket No.
19-1
Case
Khan v. United States
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1.1 “Federal Circuit’s Application of the Plausibility Standard to Weigh Evidence Against Plaintiff Conflicts With This Court’s Precedent In Twombly and Iqbal As It Nullifies Procedural Due Process Under The...
Docket No.
18-999
Case
Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Did the Federal Circuit err in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of Bennett’s ’029 patent over Bennett’s objection that...
Docket No.
18-9833
Case
Sade Mone v. United States
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“The United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over a wide range of claims against the government including but not limited to, contract disputes. When more than $10,000 is...
Docket No.
18-817
Case
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Subject
Patent3 AmiciCVSG
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“The question presented is whether patents that claim a method of medically treating a patient automatically satisfy Section 101 of the Patent Act, even if they apply a natural law...
Docket No.
18-415
Case
HP Inc. v. Berkheimer
Subject
Patent7 AmiciCVSG
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“The question presented is whether patent eligibility is a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury...
Docket No.
18-1549
Case
Zimmer, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether enhanced patent damages can be awarded without regard to whether there was an objectively high risk of infringement based on a finding of negligence, as opposed to a...
Docket No.
18-1530
Case
Enplas Display Device Corp. vs. Seoul Semiconductor Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether, in view of the presumption against extraterritoriality, a foreign defendant’s foreign sales of components to a foreign company qualifies as induced infringement, where the defendant knew of, at most,...
Docket No.
18-1515
Case
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR
Subject
Patent3 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a single-step patent claim that describes its point of novelty solely in functional terms violates the rule against functional claiming set forth in Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v....
Docket No.
18-1508
Case
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“During the patent infringement jury trial in this case, the district court found defendant-respondent Apple, Inc. (‘Apple’) had ‘waived’ any construction for a key claim limitation. The court thus instructed...
Docket No.
18-1474
Case
Sunoco, Inc. v. United States
Subject
TaxAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the Federal Circuit properly held that tax credits operate as a reduction of tax liability rather than as a payment of taxes owed.”...
Docket No.
18-1448
Case
Glasswall Solutions Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Where a threshold patent-eligibility determination under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is presented in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may...
Docket No.
18-1418
Case
Senju Pharmaceutical Co. v. Akorn, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether 35 U.S.C. § 144’s directive that the Federal Circuit “shall issue . . . its mandate and opinion” in all appeals from the Patent and Trademark Office precludes...