Search the Archives           Subscribe           About this News Service           Reader Comments

Archived updates for Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Wegner Updates his "Top Ten Supreme Court Patent Cases"

"Not since the Supreme Court granted certiorari in seven patent cases in 1965 has there been as much patent law activity at the Court as today," writes Professor Wegner in the prelude to his update on the Top Ten Supreme Court Patent Cases. "In all likelihood four or more cases in the Top Ten list will be heard or will have certiorari granted this term:"

  1. The Metabolite Patent-Eligibility Case: Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., Supreme Court No. 04­607: Briefing schedule through January 2005; hearing February-April 2006; decision by June 2006.
  2. The Schering-Plough Reverse Payments Antitrust Case: Federal Trade Comm’n v. Schering-Plough Corp., Supreme Court No. 05­273: Order outstanding asking the Solicitor General for the opinion of the United States whether to grant certiorari. The recent 2005 Second Circuit Tamoxifen opinion adds fuel to the certiorari fire.
  3. The KSR Obviousness Case: KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., Supreme Court No. 04-1350: Order outstanding asking the Solicitor General for the opinion of the United States whether to grant certiorari.
  4. The eBay Injunctive Relief Case: eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, Supreme Court No. 05-130: Already thrice scheduled for a conference, a decision whether to grant certiorari may be forthcoming as early as November 14, 2005.
  5. The Illinois Tool Market Share Case: Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., Supreme Court No. 04-1329: Argument is scheduled for November 29, 2005; a decision is likely by the end of January 2006 (but in any event by June 2006).
  6. Unitherm Sufficiency of the Evidence Case: Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift Eckrich, Inc., Supreme Court No. 04-597: A decision is expected before the end of 2005. (Oral argument took place on November 2, 2005).
  7. SmithKline Paroxetine Case: SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., No. 05-489. Briefing stage for certiorari.
  8. Phillips Claim .Construction Case: AWH Corp. v. Phillips, No. 05A292. Briefing stage for certiorari.
  9. BlackBerry Extraterritoriality Case [future]: Research In Motion, Ltd. v. NTP, Inc., certiorari petition due January 5, 2006, opinion below, NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
  10. Tamoxifen Reverse Payments Antitrust Case [future]: In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 2l 864654 (2nd Cir. 2005

Get The Good Professor's latest comments on these cases here, via

    (3)comment(s)     translate     More Updates     Send    


Anonymous Jonathan said...

Very interesting article.

My main concern is with the term "patent troll". This term brings with it derogatory connotations and does not clearly identify the nature of a patent holder.

In my opinion, if someone owns a patent, whether or not they choose to exercise their rights, they should be given the opportunity to maintain their monopoly over that invention for the term of the patent. Anything less would undermine US Patent Law.

Thanks for reading my comment!


December 07, 2005 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



April 07, 2009 4:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

puma mens shoes
puma shoes
puma speed
nike shoes
nike air
nike air shoes
nike air max 90
nike air max 95
nike air max tn
nike air rift
nike shox r4
nike air max 360
nike shox nz
puma cat
air max trainers
mens nike air max
sports shoes
nike air rifts
nike air rift trainer
nike air
nike shoes air max
nike shoes shox
air shoes
Lucyliu IS Lucyliu
nike shoe cart
puma future
cheap puma
nike rift
jeans shop
diesel jeans
levis jeans
nike rift shoes
cheap nike air rifts
bape shoes

January 06, 2010 10:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home