2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied

    WilmerHale LLPMarch 14, 2016

    See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 224-243 (2011); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 427 (2007); Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Panduit Corp., 475 U.S. 809, 810 (1986); Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 280 (1976); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). This Court has further explained that legal issues must be decided by a judge, not a jury.

  2. Supreme Court Cuts Out a Slice of the Federal Circuit’s De Novo Pie

    Williams MullenJoshua BradyJanuary 28, 2015

    Teva v. Sandoz, 574 U.S. (2015) (slip op. at *7) (citing Harries v. Air King Products, co., 183 F. 2d 158, 164 (2d Cir. 1950) and Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Panduit Corp., 475 U.S. 809, 811 (1986)). Despite the Supreme Court’s opinion that the impact of this change will be “unlikely to loom large in the universe of litigated claim construction,” Teva v. Sandoz, 574 U.S. (2015) (slip op.