No. 18-1170

Xitronix Corporation v. KLA-Tencor Corporation, dba KLA-Tencor, Incorporated

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-03-08
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedRelisted (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: antitrust antitrust-law appellate-jurisdiction circuit-split federal-circuit jurisdiction patent patent-fraud regional-circuits sherman-act subject-matter-jurisdiction walker-process
Key Terms:
Antitrust CriminalProcedure Patent Trademark JusticiabilityDoctri Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Appellate jurisdiction over Walker Process antitrust claims involving patent fraud lies in the regional circuits, not the Federal Circuit

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED In Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), this Court held that “the enforcement of a patent procured by fraud on the Patent Office may be violative of § 2 of the Sherman Act provided the other elements necessary to a § 2 case are present.” Jd. at 174. Petitioner filed a Walker Process suit against Respondent, alleging that Respondent violated the antitrust laws by fraudulently obtaining a patent. After the District Court granted summary judgment to Respondent, Petitioner appealed. The Federal Circuit ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, and transferred it to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit then ruled that the Federal Circuit had exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal, and transferred it back to the Federal Circuit. The question presented is: Does appellate jurisdiction over Walker Process claims lie in the regional circuits, or in the Federal Circuit?

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-30
Rescheduled.
2019-07-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-10
Reply of petitioner Xitronix Corporation filed. (Distributed)
2019-06-24
Brief of respondent KLA-Tencor Corporation, DBA KLA-Tencor, Inc. in opposition filed.
2019-05-24
Response Requested. (Due June 24, 2019)
2019-05-23
Letter of petitioner dated May 23, 2019, received.
2019-05-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.
2019-05-10
Letter of petitioner dated May 10, 2019, received.
2019-03-21
Supplemental brief of petitioner Xitronix Corporation filed.
2019-03-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 8, 2019.
2019-03-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 8, 2019 to May 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-03-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 8, 2019)

Attorneys

KLA-Tencor Corporation, DBA KLA-Tencor, Inc.
Aaron Gabriel FountainDLA Piper LLP (US), Respondent
Aaron Gabriel FountainDLA Piper LLP (US), Respondent
James M. HeintzDLA Piper LLP (US), Respondent
James M. HeintzDLA Piper LLP (US), Respondent
Xitronix Corporation
Adam G. UnikowskyJenner & Block LLP, Petitioner
Adam G. UnikowskyJenner & Block LLP, Petitioner