No. 19-58

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

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2019-07-10
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: antitrust-law appellate-jurisdiction circuit-split federal-circuit fifth-circuit jurisdiction patent patent-fraud summary-judgment walker-process
Key Terms:
Antitrust CriminalProcedure Patent Trademark JusticiabilityDoctri Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does appellate jurisdiction over Walker Process claims lie in the regional circuits, or in the Federal Circuit?

Question Presented (from Petition)

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 Federal Circuit then affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment decision, despite its own precedent holding that it lacked jurisdiction. 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.
2019-09-05
Reply of petitioner Xitronix Corporation filed.
2019-08-23
Brief of respondent KLA-Tencor Corporation, DBA KLA-Tencor, Inc. in opposition filed.
2019-08-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 23, 2019.
2019-08-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 9, 2019 to August 23, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-07-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 9, 2019)

Attorneys

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