Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Jeffrey A. Lamken , MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Nancy Jo Linck , Martin Moss Zoltick , Robert Danny Huntington , Brian S. Rosenbloom , Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C., Washington, DC.
Erika Arner , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, argued for appellees. Also represented by J. Michael Jakes , Michael A. Morin , Washington, DC; Edward R. Reines , Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA.
Melissa N. Patterson , Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor. Also represented by Stuart F. Delery , Mark R. Freeman ; Scott Weidenfeller , Nathan K. Kelley , Joseph Matal , William Lamarca , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.
Dan L. Bagatell , Christopher S. Coleman , Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for amici curiae Intel Corporation, Asustek Computer, Inc., Broadcom Corporation, HTC Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc.
Ann A. Byun , Hewlett-Packard Company, Wayne, PA, for amicus curiae Hewlett-Packard Company.
Daryl Joseffer , Ashley Charles Parris , King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae The Internet Association.
Michael E. Joffre , Melanie L. Bostwick , Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Dell Inc., eBay Inc., Facebook, Inc., Limelight Networks, Inc., Newegg Inc., QVC, Inc., Rackspace Hosting, Inc., Red Hat, Inc., SAS Institute Inc., Vizio, Inc., Xilinx, Inc. Dell Inc. also represented by Anthony Peterman, Dell Inc., Round Rock, TX.
Suzanne Michel , Google Inc., Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Google Inc.
Barbara A. Fiacco , Donald Ross Ware , Sarah Burg , Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, for amici curiae 3M Company, Caterpillar Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, General Electric Company, Johnson & Johnson, The Procter & Gamble Company, Amgen Inc., BP America, Inc., Glaxosmithkline LLC, Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Sanofi US.
Before NEWMAN, PLAGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge PLAGER.
Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge HUGHES.
PLAGER, Circuit Judge.
This is a covered business method ("CBM") patent case, under § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA"), Pub.L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284...
NEVER MISS A DECISION. START YOUR SUBSCRIPTION.
Uncompromising quality. Enduring impact.
Your support ensures a bright future for independent legal reporting.
As you are aware we have offered this as a free subscription over the past years and we have now made it a paid service.Look forward to your continued patronage.