In PIJIP’s ongoing Supreme Court Series, a panel of counsel for amici and parties will discuss the case on the afternoon following oral argument before the Court. The live webcast will be available once the event begins.
- Prof. Michael Carroll, American University Washington College of Law
- Matthew Hoffman, Partner Goodwin Procter
- Suzanne Michel, Senior Patent Counsel, Google, Inc.
- Prof. Jonas Anderson, American University Washington College of Law
Whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires (and as the panel explicitly did in this case), or only for clear error, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires.
Brief amicus curiae of the United States
Brief amicus curiae of Federation Internationale Des Conseils En Propriete Intellectuelle (FICPI)
Brief amici curiae of Professors Peter S. Menell, et al.
Brief amicus curiae of Houston Intellectual Property Law Association
Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association
Brief amicus curiae of Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC
Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association
Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association
Brief amici curiae of Intel Corporation, et al.
Brief amici curiae of Google Inc., et al.
SCOTUSblog Entry: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.