Spotlight On Upcoming Oral Arguments – January 2018

Monday, January 8, 2018

Alexsam, Inc. v. WildCard Systems, Inc., No. 17-1682, Courtroom 201

This appeal arises from a Southern District of Florida decision denying Alexsam's motion to remand to state court and granting summary judgment against Alexsam on its breach of contract claim. The district court held that Fidelity's invalidity counterclaim conferred subject matter jurisdiction and also that Alexsam's breach of contract claim raised substantial patent issues. Alexsam filed suit against Fidelity for breach of the parties' license agreement. In its answer, Fidelity alleged that Alexsam's patents were invalid and sought a declaratory judgment of invalidity and filed a notice of removal. On appeal, Alexsam argues that the mere fact that an issue of patent law is relevant to the contract dispute is insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Alexsam further argues that Fidelity's counterclaim was not compulsory, and therefore cannot independently establish jurisdiction. Fidelity argues that Alexsam's breach of contract claim necessarily raised disputed and substantial patent issues, which is sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. Fidelity further argues that federal courts have jurisdiction over counterclaims arising under the patent laws irrespective of their compulsory or permissive nature.

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Queens University at Kingston v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 16-2723, 16-2725, Courtroom 402

Queen's University appeals from a PTAB decision finding the challenged claims invalid as anticipated. Queen's University argues that its due process rights were violated because Samsung introduced a new enablement argument in its Reply Brief, it was not provided an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, and the PTAB ultimately relied exclusively on the new enablement argument in the Final Written Decision. Samsung argues that the PTAB properly refused Queen's University's request to submit additional evidence because the enablement argument was disclosed in Samsung's petitions and Samsung's Reply Brief merely reiterated its argument.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

SAP America, Inc. v. Wellogix, Inc., No. 17-1176, Courtroom 203

In this appeal arising from the Southern District of Texas, the Federal Circuit has been asked to consider whether a district court may consider the merits of an inter partes review or reexamination when determining whether a case isexceptional under Section 285. SAP argues that...