No. 19-445
Neology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, et al.
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
DueProcess Patent
Latest Conference:
2019-11-22
Question Presented (from Petition)
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.
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
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. Francisco — Solicitor 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. Mammen — Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Amicus
Neology, Inc.
Vinay Vijay Joshi — Amin, Turocy & Watson LLP, Petitioner
Christopher D. Banys — The Lanier Law Firm, Petitioner