Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2020-1561, 2020-1642 · judgment April 7, 2021
Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel with five or more prior petitions here, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and a Federal Circuit decision below.
Question presented
In MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), this Court held that, under Article III, a patent licensee may challenge the validity of a patent covered by a license agreement even where the licensee pays royalties that eliminate any imminent threat of suit. The Court recognized that royalty payments are coerced when, considering all the circumstances, the licensee makes those payments to avoid the threat of an infringement suit. In this case, Apple makes payments to respondent Qualcomm Incorporated under a license agreement that covers a portfolio of patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit nevertheless held that Apple lacks Article III standing to challenge the validity of two of those patents in appeals from inter partes reviews—a mechanism that Congress created precisely to facilitate challenges to questionable patents, including through appeal—because the license agreement covers multiple patents, such that invalidation of the two patents-in-suit would not by itself alter Apple’s payment obligations under the license agreement. The question presented is: Whether a licensee has Article III standing to challenge the validity of a patent covered by a license agreement that covers multiple patents. (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Mark Christopher Fleming
WilmerHale
For respondent
Aaron Michael Streett
Baker Botts, L.L.P.
Proceedings
- Jun 27 2022Petition DENIED.
- Jun 07 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/23/2022.
- Jun 06 2022Supplemental brief of petitioner Apple Inc. filed. (Distributed)
- May 24 2022Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
- Feb 22 2022The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
- Feb 02 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
- Feb 01 2022Reply of petitioner Apple Inc. filed. (Distributed)
- Jan 19 2022Brief of respondent Qualcomm Incorporated in opposition filed.
- Dec 20 2021Brief amici curiae of Senator Patrick Leahy and Congressman Darrell Issa filed.
- Dec 20 2021Brief amicus curiae of Unified Patents, LLC filed.
- Dec 20 2021Brief amicus curiae of Thales filed.
- Dec 17 2021Brief amici curiae of Engine Advocacy, et al. filed.
- Dec 03 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 19, 2022.
- Dec 02 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 20, 2021 to January 19, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 17 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2021)
- Sep 09 2021Application (21A39) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 17, 2021.
- Sep 03 2021Application (21A39) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 18, 2021 to November 17, 2021, submitted to The Chief Justice.