Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
13-896	Fed. Cir.	Mar 31, 2015 Tr.Aud.	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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion analysis: Justices eat their own words in dispute about inducing patent infringement (Ronald Mann)
Argument analysis: Justices debate intent to induce patent infringement (again) (Ronald Mann)
Court to rule on license plate messages, two other cases (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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.

Featured Posts

Argument analysis: Employment discrimination law’s “natural experiment” – Charlotte Garden

A trademark case with colorful language: Amy Howe and Mark Walsh talk through Iancu v. Brunetti – SCOTUStalk

Court to take up LGBT rights in the workplace (Updated) – Amy Howe
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the April 18 conference on Monday; the justices agreed to decide Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd., and Barton v. Barr. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Putnam Investments, LLC v. Brotherston.
On Tuesday, the justices dismissed Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian as improvidently granted.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis.
On Tuesday morning, the justices heard oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York. On Tuesday afternoon, they hear argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin and Rehaif v. United States.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Quarles v. United States and Taggart v. Lorenzen.
On Friday, the justices meet for their April 26 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Biestek v. Berryhill A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
- Bucklew v. Precythe Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
- Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator cannot be held liable under Rule 10b–5(b).
- Republic of Sudan v. Harrison When civil process is served on a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1608(a)(3) requires a mailing to be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state.
- Sturgeon v. Frost Alaska’s Nation River is not public land; and like all non-public lands and navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, it is exempt under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act from the National Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
- City of Newport Beach, California v. Vos (1) Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody; (2) whether, under the Fourth Amendment “totality of the circumstances” analysis for assessing the reasonableness of force used against a suspect who attacks law enforcement officers, a court must take into account allegedly unreasonable police conduct that took place before the use of force, but foreseeably created the need to use that force; and (3) whether, under the Fourth Amendment’s analysis for use of force, a law enforcement officer’s interest in using deadly force against a suspect threatening an officer’s life is diminished if the assailant is mentally ill.
- Dahne v. Richey Whether prison inmates have a First Amendment right to include threatening, abusive and irrelevant language in grievances.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 66

Cases decided 31

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders Opinions	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders IANCU V. BRUNETTI (18-302) EMULEX CORP. V. VARJABEDIAN (18-459)	16 PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. NEWTON (18-389) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KAESTNER FAMILY TRUST (18-457)	17 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS (18-431) MCDONOUGH V. SMITH (18-485)	18 Conference	19	20
21	22 Orders FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (18-481) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS V. DAVIS (18-525)	23 MITCHELL V. WISCONSIN (18-6210) REHAIF V. UNITED STATES (17-9560) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK (18-966) Opinions	24 QUARLES V. UNITED STATES (17-778) TAGGART V. LORENZEN (18-489)	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders	30

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	66
Cases decided	31
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

Breaking News :

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Argument analysis: Employment discrimination law’s “natural experiment” – Charlotte Garden

A trademark case with colorful language: Amy Howe and Mark Walsh talk through Iancu v. Brunetti – SCOTUStalk

Court to take up LGBT rights in the workplace (Updated) – Amy Howe

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of April 19, 2019

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Apr. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award