U.S. Supreme Court Remands Case to Federal Circuit to Review Patent Under Teva

May 4, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

In the case, the plaintiff Azure Networks, LLC, sued Marvell in the Eastern District of Texas in 2011, alleging that Marvell’s products infringed Azure’s patent on Bluetooth technology. After the district court construed a particular patent term, Azure conceded that Marvell did not infringe the patent­in­suit and the court entered judgment in favor of Marvell in 2013. Azure appealed the construction to the Federal Circuit, and in November 2014, the Federal Circuit found in favor of Azure and reversed the district court’s construction.

Marvell filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s construction under the de novo standard of review, contrary to the Court’s Teva decision. Specifically, Marvell argued that the Federal Circuit made “factual findings contrary to those of the district court without identifying clear error.”

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a one­page order, remanding the case back to the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of Teva.

CSR PLC v. Azure Networks, LLC, United States Supreme Court, No. 14­976.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.