No. 19-211
Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al. v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P.
Amici (1)
Experienced Counsel
Tags: 35-usc-112 35-usc-112a 35-usc-284 apportionment federal-circuit garretson-v-clark patent-claims patent-damages patent-infringement patent-validity reasonable-royalty written-description
Latest Conference:
2019-11-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred by affirming a damages award based on unapportioned end-user service revenues.
2. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in ruling that a patent satisfies 35 U.S.C. §112(a)'s requirement of "a written description of the invention" merely because the specification does "not expressly exclude[]" technology within the scope of the patent claims.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Federal Circuit erred by affirming a damages award based on unapportioned end-user service revenues
Docket Entries
2019-11-04
Petition DENIED. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2019-10-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.
2019-10-09
Reply of petitioners Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2019-09-25
Brief of respondent Sprint Communications Company, L.P. in opposition filed.
2019-09-18
Brief amicus curiae of Intel Corporation filed.
2019-09-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 25, 2019.
2019-09-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 18, 2019 to September 25, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-08-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 18, 2019)
2019-05-31
Application (18A1232) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until August 15, 2019.
2019-05-23
Application (18A1232) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 16, 2019 to August 15, 2019, submitted to Justice Thomas. (The Chief Justice is recused.)
Attorneys
Intel Corporation
Sprint Communications Company, L.P.
John Michael Jakes — Finnegan, Henderson, et al., Respondent
Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al.
John Caviness O'Quinn — Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Petitioner