|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-896||Fed. Cir.||Mar 31, 2015||May 26, 2015||6-2||Kennedy||OT 2014|
Holding: A defendant’s belief regarding patent validity is not a defense to an induced infringement claim.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on May 26, 2015. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 23 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 27, 2014)|
|Feb 3 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 31, 2014.|
|Mar 31 2014||Brief of respondent Cisco Systems, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|May 6 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 22, 2014.|
|May 27 2014||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 31 2014||Supplemental brief of respondent Cisco Systems, Inc. filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 31 2014||Reply of petitioner Commil USA, LLC filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 3 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 25, 2014.|
|Dec 1 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2014.|
|Dec 5 2014||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|Jan 20 2015||Brief of petitioner Commil USA, LLC filed.|
|Jan 20 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jan 26 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Gilead Sciences, Inc. filed.|
|Jan 26 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association filed.|
|Jan 27 2015||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jan 27 2015||Brief amicus curiae of AbbVie Inc. filed.|
|Jan 27 2015||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Jan 27 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America filed.|
|Jan 27 2015||Brief amicus curiae of MUSC Foundation for Research Development filed.|
|Jan 27 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Biotechnology Industry Organization filed.|
|Feb 2 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 31, 2015|
|Feb 3 2015||Record requested from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit.|
|Feb 4 2015||Record received from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Feb 12 2015||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 19 2015||Brief of respondent Cisco Systems, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 20 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Feb 24 2015||Brief amici curiae of Public Knowledge, et al. filed.|
|Feb 25 2015||Brief amici curiae of Sixteen Intellectual Property Law Professors filed. (Distributed).|
|Feb 26 2015||Brief amici curiae of EMC Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Computer & Communications Industry Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2015||Brief amici curiae of DeLorme, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Generic Pharmaceutical Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Askeladden L.L.C. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Saurabh Vishnubhakat filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|Mar 20 2015||Reply of petitioner Commil USA, LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 31 2015||Argued. For petitioner: Mark S. Werbner, Dallas, Tex.; and Ginger D. Anders, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C.|
|May 26 2015||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to Parts II-B and III. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., joined. Breyer, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|Jun 29 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.