Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Granted (June 2015)

CSR PLC v. Azure Networks, LLC, No. 14-976

Question Presented:

Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit err in using a de novo standard of review instead of a "clear error" standard of review in reviewing the factual findings made by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas while construing the term "MAC Address" as used in U.S. Patent No. 7,756,129?

Cert. petition filed 2/4/15, conference 4/17/15, GVR 4/20/15.

CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument

WilmerHale represents petitioner Broadcom.

Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 14-206

Question Presented:

Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in matters tried to a district court, the court's "[f]indings of fact...must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous."

The question presented is as follows:

Whether a district court's factual findings in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit currently requires, or only for clear error, as Rule 52(a) requires.

Cert. petition filed 8/18/14, conference 10/31/14, conference 1/23/15, GVR 1/26/15.

CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument

Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc., No. 13-1536

Questions Presented:

In Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc), the Federal Circuit construed this Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), to hold that patent claim construction presents a purely legal question subject to de novo review. In this case, the Federal Circuit granted en banc review to reconsider the widely criticized Cybor rule. In a 6-4 decision, it decided to adhere to its precedent on stare decisis grounds, which hold no sway in this Court. Shortly after the decision, this Court granted the petition for certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854 (Mar. 31, 2014), to consider the validity of the Cybor rule.

This petition presents the same question presented in Teva. It also presents a second question that will be squarely implicated if the Court, in Teva, affirms the Cybor rule. That question arises from Respondent's failure to raise the claim construction arguments on which it ultimately prevailed below (which are purely legal issues per Cybor) in a motion for judgment as a matter of law after they were previously rejected on summary judgment. The courts of appeals are starkly divided as to whether there is an exception for "purely legal" issues to the general rule that issues raised in a failed summary judgment motion and not renewed in a motion for JMOL are forfeited, a question this Court expressly left open in Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (2011).

The questions presented are:

1. Whether a district court's factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires, or only for clear error, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires.
2. Whether there is an exception for "purely legal" issues to the general rule that an issue raised only in a failed summary judgment motion and not raised in a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 is forfeited on appeal.

Cert. petition filed 6/20/14, conference 9/29/14, conference 1/23/15, GVR 1/26/15.

CAFC Opinion, CAFC Argument