Documents

Oral argument — Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc.

Oral argument · Oral argument · Oct 2, 2015

I'd like to make a brief comment about the second issue, which I don't think was discussed in our briefs. … O'Connor's comment, what you're allowed to not authorize, if that makes sense.

Oral argument — ALCESIA SRL v. ITC

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jan 13, 2011

The ITC focused only on a time period after March 28, 2008. … With respect to the comments made about apparent authority, all these comments show that the record was incomplete.

Oral argument — NSK LTD v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 6, 2007

Is that an official position of Commerce that it can't act retroactively unless it acts under Section 129? … Well, it is Commerce's position that when it is implementing an adverse WTO report, it has to- Commerce's position is that it would be acting unlawfully if it didn't act under 129.

Oral argument — ARMSTRONG v. TREASURY

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 10, 2011

And the agency led us to believe that their only comment was no comment. … Armstrong interested in the period since December of 2007?

Oral argument — Applications in Internet Time v. RPX Corporation

Oral argument · Oral argument · Feb 7, 2018

And that if you just look at those facts alone, along with the public statements made by RPX about, you know, acting on behalf of its members and acting as an extension of the in-house legal department … There were comments asking the PTO to establish a regulation or a rule defining what those terms mean, and the PTO did not do so. Instead, it just created a guide, right?

Oral argument — Sanford Health Plan v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jan 9, 2020

I understand that comment. We disagree with it because we don't think the government has grossly oversimplified the way this market works. Fine. … So, and just to clean up two small points, the phrase money mandating can be confusing.

Oral argument — Global Tubing LLC v. Tenaris Coiled Tubes LLC

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jun 6, 2025

But the comment doesn't seem related to that at all. And, I mean, we all know how we edit documents sometimes and make comments. … And Judge Hughes, I understand that the comment bubble, you know, is, I understand your questions about the comment bubble.

Oral argument — Carlson v. DVA

Oral argument · Oral argument · Feb 7, 2007

Not necessarily administered by the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force or whatever the Service is. … The first sentence says, in line of duty means an injury or disease incurred or aggravated during a period of active military service.

Oral argument — FORRESTER ENVIR v. WHEELABRATOR

Oral argument · Oral argument · Apr 2, 2013

There are four state law causes of action, one for Consumer Protection Act violation, two for intentional interference, and one for misappropriation. None of them raise a patent law issue. … Plainly, there are classes of cases where state law claims are articulated that have some patent issue, I think, to use a phrase this Court has used, in the air, that don't necessarily require resolution

Oral argument — BETTCHER INDUSTRIES v. BUNZL USA

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jul 8, 2011

We are wrestled on the air. All right. Well, we'll see. Maybe he lost. We'll find out as the argument progresses. All right, very well. Why don't you go ahead. May it please the court. … I think that there is a final determination when the Patent Office acts and issues a right to appeal notice. This is simply saying that at the time, I'm sorry, before it goes to the BPAI. Yes. Right.

Oral argument — Adams v. SSA

Oral argument · Oral argument · Sep 11, 2009

There would be no basis for saying his personal views of this employee during this period of time is relevant where the personnel records for the same period of time are not relevant, right? … The administrative judge spread out his comments on the mitigating factors throughout his opinion.

Oral argument — Deloach v. Air Force

Oral argument · Oral argument · Aug 6, 2009

Deloach, our client, and of course the Agency Air Force. This has been a sort of a convoluted type case. It went up on remand to the Merit System Protection Board. … Is she authorized to act in his behalf? Is that your understanding of how that sets up? Yes. Mr.

Oral argument — LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corporation

Oral argument · Oral argument · Mar 7, 2016

Some portions of the opinions, the judge is talking about the final act is transplantation. What's relevant is what happens at the time of transplantation. … Well, it doesn't seem to me that what you are proposing to say we need to clean this up, your proposal is plain meaning that no plasticizer is deliberately removed from the internal matrix of transplantation

Oral argument — Kennedy v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · Oct 3, 2016

Yes, Your Honor, by the secretary acting through the board for correction of naval records. … And then that would leave open the question of the sophomore fall term of the sophomore year, which is still in the air. Yes, the board could consider that as well. Yes. So the board has authority.

Oral argument — Carucel Investments L.P. v. Vidal

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 7, 2023

We didn't pull that out of the air. There was a prior construction given by a district court. It did come up to this court. It was affirmed without a written opinion. … What was claimed was a movable base station that significantly improved wireless communications by acting as an intermediary between cell towers and mobile devices.

Oral argument — Best Key Textiles Co. Ltd. v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · Dec 3, 2014

There's an open comment period, and it gathered information during that open comment period, but it also has to construe the tariff. Other agencies don't do that. They don't do that. … They get comments. It's all on the public record. Everybody can comment on it. Well, Your Honor, this was public record. There was a 1625c notice and comment period.

Oral argument — King v. DVA

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jan 10, 2006

Well, Your Honor, I believe what occurred here is that for this claim, it was remanded to the board after that act was passed. … I see. that he had been administered some drugs during his service, his honorable service with the United States Air Force, that destroyed his body. He was way off point, Your Honor.

Oral argument — Merck v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal

Oral argument · Oral argument · Dec 6, 2006

It still wound up with no more period of marketing exclusivity than it would have otherwise had. … Bechtold's comment about that has been the practice, if it is, I'm unaware of it. I haven't seen any cases that have so detailed, so I really can't comment on that.

Oral argument — UNIV SOUTHERN CAL v. DEPUY SPINE

Oral argument · Oral argument · Mar 8, 2012

Even if there was some 30-day period enunciated clearly in the regs, the Board expressly asked for comments on the count. So they're asking, what do you all think about the count? … Didn't the Board expressly ask for comments on the count, and isn't that what 744 is responsive to? It asked for comments on the count. But you're not allowed to make any negative comments?

Oral argument — University of Pennsylvania v. Eli Lilly and Company

Oral argument · Oral argument · Sep 4, 2018

on radio sensitivity Radiation was known then and was still known to work preferentially on dividing cells But the Penn inventors found that when they inhibited tumor cell division using agents that act … In the blue brief, Penn argues that the PTAB aired relying on three references, Waterhouse, Gabbritt, and Guilford.