Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
15-777 | Fed. Cir. | Oct 11, 2016 | Dec 6, 2016 | 8-0 | Sotomayor | OT 2016 |
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in this case.
Holding: In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under Section 289 of the Patent Act need not be the end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on December 6, 2016.
Date | Proceedings and Orders |
---|---|
Oct 19 2015 | Application (15A421) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 11, 2015 to December 14, 2015, submitted to The Chief Justice. |
Oct 20 2015 | Application (15A421) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until December 14, 2015. |
Dec 14 2015 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 15, 2016) |
Dec 21 2015 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners. |
Jan 4 2016 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 16, 2016. |
Jan 14 2016 | Brief amici curiae of Public Knowledge, et al. filed. |
Jan 15 2016 | Brief amici curiae of The Hispanic Leadership Fund, et al. filed. |
Jan 15 2016 | Brief amici curiae of Dell Inc., et al. filed. |
Jan 15 2016 | Brief amici curiae of 37 Intellectual Property Professors filed. |
Jan 15 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of The Computer & Communications Industry Association filed. |
Jan 15 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of Systems, Inc. filed. |
Feb 3 2016 | Brief of respondent Apple Inc. in opposition filed. |
Feb 16 2016 | Reply of petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed. |
Feb 17 2016 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016. |
Mar 14 2016 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 18, 2016. |
Mar 21 2016 | Petition GRANTED limited to Question 2 presented by the petition. |
Apr 5 2016 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 1, 2016. |
Apr 5 2016 | The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 29, 2016. |
May 18 2016 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners. |
Jun 1 2016 | Joint appendix filed. (2 Volumes) |
Jun 1 2016 | Brief of petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. filed. |
Jun 7 2016 | Brief amici curiae of Public Knowledge, et al. filed. |
Jun 8 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of the United States in support of neither party filed. |
Jun 8 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of BSA I The Software Alliance in support of neither party filed. |
Jun 8 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of Nike, Inc. in support of neither party filed. |
Jun 8 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of Software Freedom Law Center filed. |
Jun 8 2016 | Brief amici curiae of The Internet Association, et al. filed. |
Jun 8 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of The Computer & Communications Industry Association filed. |
Jun 8 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of Association of the Bar of the City of New York in support of neither party filed. |
Jun 8 2016 | Brief amici curiae of Engine Advocacy and Shapeways, Inc. filed. |
Jun 8 2016 | Brief amici curiae of 50 Intellectual Property Professors, David Abrams, et al. filed. |
Jun 8 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of Industrial Designers Society of America in support of neither party filed. |
Jun 8 2016 | Brief amici curiae of The Hispanic Leadership Fund, et al. filed. |
Jul 13 2016 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 11, 2016. |
Jul 22 2016 | Record requested from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit. |
Jul 22 2016 | Records received from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. Also received is a confidential Joint Appendix not available on PACER is also electronic. |
Jul 22 2016 | Record received from U.S.D.C. Northern District of California is electronic and located on PACER. |
Jul 29 2016 | Brief of respondent Apple Inc. filed. |
Aug 4 2016 | Brief amici curiae of 113 Distinguished Industrial Design Professionals and Educators filed. |
Aug 4 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed. |
Aug 5 2016 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
Aug 5 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of Crocs, Inc. filed. (Distributed). |
Aug 5 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of Nordock, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
Aug 5 2016 | Brief amici curiae of Tiffany and Company, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Aug 5 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of Boston Patent Law Association filed. (Distributed) |
Aug 5 2016 | Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property Professors filed. (Distributed). |
Aug 5 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of ACT | The App Association filed. (Distributed) |
Aug 5 2016 | Brief amici curiae of Bison Designs, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Aug 5 2016 | Brief amicus curiae of Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
Aug 9 2016 | CIRCULATED |
Aug 29 2016 | Reply of petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Sep 26 2016 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
Oct 11 2016 | Argued. For petitioners: Kathleen M. Sullivan, New York, N. Y. For United States, as amicus curiae: Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. |
Dec 6 2016 | Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
Jan 9 2017 | 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...
www.scotusblog.com
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...
www.scotusblog.com
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 ...
www.scotusblog.com
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.