Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company LP, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2023-1246, 2023-1436 · judgment July 13, 2023
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Federal Circuit decision below, a business petitioner, and counsel who has filed here before, and down for a business respondent.
Questions presented
-
Where petitioner’s patent infringement claims were not finally rejected until the district court judge approved the Magistrate Judge’s ruling disposing of same, can petitioner’s conduct in pressing its claims in the meantime and before that final ruling by the district court be relied upon to conclude that petitioner “knew or should have known” its claims were baseless so that this was an “exceptional” case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 justifying an award of respondents’ attorney’s fees?
-
Is the Magistrate Judge’s decision rejecting petitioner’s infringement claims—a decision to which it timely objected—a final ruling so that petitioner should have known that its claims were baseless even when that ruling had not yet been adopted by the district judge as a final disposition?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
William Peterson Ramey III
Ramey LLP
For respondent
Brian David Schmalzbach
McGuireWoods LLP
Case
Subject area
Economic Activity (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Order
Order list, January 8, 2024 · Certiorari denied
Proceedings
- Jan 08 2024Petition DENIED.
- Dec 06 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
- Dec 04 2023Waiver of right of respondent Sprint Communications Company LP, et al. to respond filed.
- Nov 22 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 28, 2023)