Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Chrimar Systems, Inc., dba CMS Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Ale USA Inc., et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2018-2420 · judgment September 19, 2019


Certiorari denied · June 29, 2020
Pre-decision estimate: 8% cert probability (95% interval 5%–11%)

Before the decision, about 1.8× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and a Federal Circuit decision below, and down for a business respondent.

Questions presented

Chrimar brought an action for infringement against ALE under four patents. A jury rejected ALE’s invalidity defenses and awarded past damages. The District Court then awarded post-judgment ongoing royalties. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed liability and damages, expressly holding that a partial remand to reconstrue one patent was “immaterial to damages because any damages that would result from the alleged infringement of the [remanded] ’012 patent also results from the infringement of the ’107 and ’760 patents.” App. 48a. After the District Court’s entry of the eventually-affirmed judgment, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) (part of an Executive Branch agency) rendered final decisions finding unpatentable all asserted claims (a decision later affirmed). On this basis, the Federal Circuit ordered that the Article III damages judgment be vacated and remanded for dismissal. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the later Executive Branch administrative outcome required vacating the prior already-affirmed Article III judgment. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether the Federal Circuit may apply a finality standard for patent cases that conflicts with the standard applied by this Court and all other circuit courts in nonpatent cases.

  2. Whether a final judgment of liability and damages that has been affirmed on appeal may be reversed based on the decision of an administrative agency, merely because an appeal having nothing to do with liability, damages or the proper calculation of the ongoing royalty rate is pending.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Robert P. Greenspoon
Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC

For respondent
Leisa Talbert Peschel
Jackson Walker LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences

Amicus briefs
4 cert-stage

Proceedings

  1. Jun 29 2020
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jun 22 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/25/2020.
  3. Jun 17 2020
    Rescheduled.
  4. Jun 02 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/18/2020.
  5. May 29 2020
    Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed.
  6. May 29 2020
    Reply of petitioners Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
  7. May 26 2020
    Brief of respondent Ale USA Inc., f/k/a Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise USA, Inc. in opposition filed.
  8. May 22 2020
    Brief amicus curiae of Baxter International, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
  9. Apr 23 2020
    Response Requested. (Due May 26, 2020)
  10. Apr 22 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.
  11. Apr 13 2020
    Brief amicus curiae of The Naples Roundtable, Inc. filed.
  12. Apr 13 2020
    Brief amicus curiae of US Inventor, Inc. filed.
  13. Apr 13 2020
    Brief amici curiae of National Small Business Association, et al. filed.
  14. Apr 09 2020
    Waiver of right of respondents Ale USA Inc., et al. to respond filed.
  15. Mar 10 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 13, 2020)