As I mentioned last week, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted cert in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,
No. 16-1011, in which the question
presented is "Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
erred in
holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring
outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases
where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)." Here is a link to the Scotus Blog's webpage for the case. I'm guessing there will be a fair number of amicus briefs filed in this one, on both sides. Meanwhile, Dan McDonald has published an interesting essay on the case in Law360, and Tim Holbrook has posted a thoughtful analysis on Patently-O, both of which I commend to readers' attention.
In addition, as I noted last month, there is also a petition for certiorari pending in EVE-USA, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. 17-804, petition filed Nov. 30, 3017, in which the two questions presented are "(1) Whether, and under what circumstances, assignors and their privies are free to contest a patent's validity; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that proof of but-for causation, without more, satisfies the requirement that damages be apportioned between patented and un-patented features." The briefs filed thus far--in addition to the petitioner's brief, there are four amicus briefs--are available for download from Scotus Blog here. I joined the brief on the assignor estoppel issue, but definitely not on the damages issue. (For my views on the latter, see here and here).
In addition, as I noted last month, there is also a petition for certiorari pending in EVE-USA, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. 17-804, petition filed Nov. 30, 3017, in which the two questions presented are "(1) Whether, and under what circumstances, assignors and their privies are free to contest a patent's validity; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that proof of but-for causation, without more, satisfies the requirement that damages be apportioned between patented and un-patented features." The briefs filed thus far--in addition to the petitioner's brief, there are four amicus briefs--are available for download from Scotus Blog here. I joined the brief on the assignor estoppel issue, but definitely not on the damages issue. (For my views on the latter, see here and here).
No comments:
Post a Comment