Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 FEBRUARY 2017

Spotlight On Upcoming Oral Arguments - January 2017

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In this appeal arising from the N.D. Cal., the Federal Circuit is tasked with deciding whether Octane Fitness effectively overturned Shum v. Intel Corp.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Golden Bridge Technology v. Apple, No. 16-1537, Courtroom 201

In this appeal arising from the N.D. Cal., the Federal Circuit is tasked with deciding whether Octane Fitness effectively overturned Shum v. Intel Corp. on the issue of awarding costs when there is more than one "prevailing party." Golden Bridge argues that Shum established the type of "overly restrictive" framework that Octane Fitness rejected and that the district court judge should have discretion in awarding costs. Apple argues that Octane Fitness only addressed the "exceptional case" standard and is thus inapplicable.

Garmin International v. ITC, No. 16-2584, Courtroom 203

In this appeal, the Court must determine whether the ITC followed the proper procedure in modifying a previously issued exclusion order. Garmin argues that the ITC acted outside its authority because it failed to provide notice, a hearing, and an opportunity for Garmin to present its

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from