No. 20-1291

WPEM, LLC v. SOTI Inc.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2021-03-17
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: 35-usc-282 35-usc-285 clear-and-convincing-evidence district-court-discretion exceptional-case patent-law patent-validity prior-art
Key Terms:
Patent
Latest Conference: 2021-05-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a patent's presumption of validity afforded by 35 U.S.C. §282 limit a district court's discretion to find a case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285 when it is only later discovered the accused technology is prior art?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Does a _ patent’s presumption of validity afforded by 35 U.S.C. §282 limit a district court’s discretion to find a case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285 when it is only later discovered the accused technology is prior art? 2. Given the clear and convincing evidence standard to invalidate a patent, does a district court have the discretion to find a case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285 based upon asserted but unproven grounds of invalidity and unenforceability?

Docket Entries

2021-05-17
Petition DENIED.
2021-04-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
2021-03-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 16, 2021)

Attorneys

WPEM, LLC
William Peterson Ramey IIIRamey & Schwaller, LLP, Petitioner
William Peterson Ramey IIIRamey & Schwaller, LLP, Petitioner