No. 19-445

Neology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, et al.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2019-10-03
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: clear-and-convincing-evidence due-process federal-circuit filing-date notice patent patent-claim patent-validity procedural-due-process validity written-description
Key Terms:
DueProcess Patent
Latest Conference: 2019-11-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a patent can be invalidated without notifying the patent owner about the specific invalidity challenge and giving the patent owner an opportunity to be heard

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW A patent claim is presumed to be valid. However, the patent claim’s validity can be challenged on the grounds that it lacks adequate written description in the patent application from which the claim issued (“the relevant patent application”). Separately, the same patent claim’s effective filing date can be challenged (without challenging the claim’s validity) for lack of adequate written description in an earlier filed “parent” patent application. The parent and the relevant patent applications have different written descriptions because their respective initially filed claims, which conclude the specification, are different. In the proceedings below, only the effective filing date was challenged, not validity. Yet, the Federal Circuit held that because both the filing date and the validity challenges relate to written description, Petitioner was put on notice and waived the argument that the initially filed claims of the relevant patent application provide verbatim written description support for the asserted claims. In view of this, the Question Presented is: Whether, as a matter of law and procedural due process, a patent can be invalidated without notifying the patent owner about the specific invalidity challenge posed by the validity challenger and giving the patent owner an opportunity to be heard.

Docket Entries

2019-11-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019.
2019-10-24
Waiver of right of Mammen, Nathan S. Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc., Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corp., Kapsch TrafficCom Canada, Inc., Star Systems International Ltd., and Star RFID Co., Ltd. to respond filed.
2019-10-15
Waiver of right of respondent International Trade Commission, et al. to respond filed.
2019-10-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 4, 2019)

Attorneys

International Trade Commission, et al.
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc., Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corp., Kapsch TrafficCom Canada, Inc., Star Systems International Ltd., and Star RFID Co., Ltd.
Nathan S. MammenKirkland & Ellis LLP, Amicus
Nathan S. MammenKirkland & Ellis LLP, Amicus
Neology, Inc.
Vinay Vijay JoshiAmin, Turocy & Watson LLP, Petitioner
Vinay Vijay JoshiAmin, Turocy & Watson LLP, Petitioner
Christopher D. BanysThe Lanier Law Firm, Petitioner
Christopher D. BanysThe Lanier Law Firm, Petitioner