Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – November 2023

The following arguments will be available to the public live, both in-person and through online audio streaming. Access information will be available by 9 AM ET each day of argument at: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/.

Monday, November 6, 2023, 10:00 A.M.

Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 22-1932, Courtroom 201, Panel A+

Eolas Technologies Incorporated (“Eolas”) sued Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), Google, and Walmart (collectively, “the defendants”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,195,507. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §101 for claiming ineligible subject matter. The district court granted the motion, finding that the asserted claims were not directed to an improvement in computer technology, but were instead “directed to the abstract idea of enabling interactivity with remote objects on a client computer browser using distributed computing.” Further, the court held that the claim limitations embody an abstract idea and do not recite a specific technological solution. Eolas appealed, arguing that the asserted claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but rather concern improvements to computer network technology, interactivity, security, and scalability. The defendants respond that Eolas argued for and received a broad and generic claim construction that encapsulated all interactive web browsers, thus resulting in purely functional, result-oriented claims.

Monday, November 6, 2023, 10:00 A.M.

ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 22-1755, Courtroom 402, Panel B

ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) filed a patent infringement suit against Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”), alleging that Qualcomm infringed transmitter claims from U.S. Patent No. 6,091,940 (“the ’940 patent”) and receiver claims from U.S. Patent No. 7,218,907 (“the ’907 patent”). In a prior litigation, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that Qualcomm did not infringe the representative receiver claims of another ParkerVision patent (ParkerVision I).In the present litigation, ParkerVision argued that the asserted claims are markedly different from those asserted in ParkerVision I. Qualcomm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that collateral estoppel based on the decision of non-infringement from ParkerVision I requires a determination of non-infringement in the present case because ParkerVision is accusing infringement by the same products as in ParkerVision I. The district court granted Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment. ParkerVision appealed, arguing that the district court erred in applying collateral estoppel to the receiver claims because no claims of the ’940 patent or the ’907 patent were asserted in ParkerVision I. Qualcomm responds that the district court appropriately applied collateral estoppel because the issues in the present litigation and ParkerVision I are identical as the presently asserted claims raise the same non-infringement issue based on the “generating” limitation.

Thursday, November 9, 2023, 10:00 A.M.

Probatter Sports, LLC v. Sports Tutor, Inc., No. 22-1814, Courtroom 402, Panel H

In 2005, ProBatter Sports, LLC (“ProBatter”) sued Sports Tutor Inc. (“Sports Tutor”) alleging that Sports Tutor infringed numerous claims of U.S. Patents No. 6,182,649 and No. 6,546,924 by selling the “HomePlate” pitching machines. ProBatter initially sought damages based on lost profits, but later sought reasonable royalties instead. As a result, the court had declined to rule on the issue of damages. Throughout the trial, however, ProBatter was permitted to raise issues regarding damages, and Sports Tutor raised a standing objection to such evidence. Ultimately, the court awarded reasonable royalty, enhanced damages doubling the award due to willful infringement, and prejudgment interest. Sports Tutor appealed, arguing that the district court held that the shift in theories precluded ProBatter from seeking any monetary remedy, leaving them with only injunctive relief, and that this was the “law of the case.” According to Sports Tutor, the district court “reversed itself” by considering ProBatter’s damages theory and permitting Sports Tutor to conduct related additional discovery. ProBatter responds that the district court did not categorically bar damages, but merely reserved the issue until after the full presentation of evidence in the infringement trial.