Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Intermec Technologies Corporation
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2688, 2016-2689, 2016-2690, 2016-2692 · judgment October 11, 2017
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), a Federal Circuit decision below, and a petition filed soon after the judgment below, and down for a business respondent.
Question presented
May a court determine that a patent claim is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 1 of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) without analyzing the requirements of the individual claim steps? Do Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) prohibit a court from entering a summary judgment finding that an invention is ineligible for patent protection when the record contains uncontroverted, relevant evidence establishing that there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Anthony C. White
Thompson Hine LLP
For respondent
Carson P. Veach
Freeborn & Peters, LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Apr 02 2018Petition DENIED.
- Mar 13 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2018.
- Mar 09 2018Waiver of right of respondent INTERMEC TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION to respond filed.
- Feb 02 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 12, 2018.
- Jan 31 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 9, 2018 to March 12, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 09 2017Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 9, 2018)