A quick search of the Westlaw Briefs database reveals quite a number of briefs filed on behalf of Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, the subject of the Court’s order to show cause.

Attorney Howard N. Shipley of Foley Lardner filed 2 cert petitions on behalf of Sigram:

1. Petition for Certiorari, Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft MBH v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 2014 WL 4201694 (8/25/14).
2. Petition for Certiorari, Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v. Lee, 2014 WL 5211966 (10/6/14)

A colleague contacted the Supreme Court Bar, and learned that Shipley was admitted on 5/19/14, roughly three months before he filed the cert petition in the Cisco case. A Westlaw search shows that these are Shipley’s only filings at the Supreme Court. He has filed three briefs before the Federal Circuit, all on behalf of Sigram.

Attorney Chid S. Iyer of Sughrue Mion filed a number of other amicus briefs on behalf of Sigram in several recent IP cases before the Court.

1. Brief of Amicus Curiae Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, in Support of Neither Party, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc. (1/23/13).
2. Brief of Amicus Curiae Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, in Support of Petitioner, Wildtangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC (9/23/13).
3. Brief of Amicus Curiae Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, in Support of Petitioner,  Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank Intern. (10/7/13).
4. Brief of Amicus Curiae Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, in Support of Neither Party, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank Intern.(1/28/14).

To give you a flavor, here is an excerpt of the Myriad brief:

Mathematics knows since centuries the need of an unquestionable basis for making precise statements: Here an “orthogonal coordinate system” usually serves as such a basis – often an “independent coordinates system” is sufficient. This court builds on this technique of Mathematics by its use of the term and notion “creative alias inventive concept”, in its above decisions, when asking for precise descriptions of properties of claimed inventions: Its “creative/inventive concepts” of an invention determine its state space exactly as the Mathematics’ “independent coordinates” of a system determine its state space (i.e. the space they both “span”).

Iyer has also filed a brief on behalf of Sigram before the Federal Circuit:

• Brief of Amicus Curiae, Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY, Lightning Ballast Control v. Philips (5/28/13). (A colleague who sent me the brief, and practices in this field, told me “I have literally no idea what side the attached Sigram brief is taking, nor what argument it is making.”).

According to a Westlaw search, all of Iyer’s appellate briefs were filed on behalf of Sigram.

Iyer’s partner at Sughrue, Michael R. Dzwonczyk, filed an amicus breif on behalf of Sigram for the Federal Circuit as well.

• Brief of Amicus Curiae Sigram Schindler Beteiligun gsgesellschaft mbH, in Support of Neither Party, CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL v. Alice (Fed. Cir. 12/6/12).

There may be more, please send if you have any.

Update: Here are three briefs filed on behalf of Schindler in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:

 

• Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants, IN RE TELES AG INFORMATIONSTECHNOLOGIEN and SIGRAM SCHINDLER BETEILIGUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH (3/22/13).
• Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Cisco Systems v. Stanek (4/18/14)
• Petition for Rehearing En Banc, IN RE TELES AG INFORMATIONSTECHNOLOGIEN and SIGRAM SCHINDLER (6/9/14)

Here is a section from the final rehearing petition:

SSBG is aware that putting this question to this Court3), while being aPetitioner before it, may be seen as being undue and/or foolish. Yet, SSBG needsthis question to be clarified [67,37,78], possible only as required by the SupremeCourt, for further investing into innovations for the US economy, i.e. into creating/developing/marketing a range of different innovations in advanced telecommunica-tions/IPR technologies. SSBG and its subsidiaries, together currently only a “smallcap company”, to this end invested in/for the US market already far more than 20 Mio US$ – on which totally US based and very large and internationally very successful necessarily quantities minded, hence less innovative, companies are supposed to leverage worldwide, up to SSBG’s business model – but had started  this investment by about the year 2005, when the U.S. Highest Courts’ SPL precedents as to ETs and their foreseeable upcoming challenges of SPL precedents was seemingly trustworthy and predictable. It is extremely likely that similarquestions are at issue with any US innovation business company. This is a true argument for urgently clarifying the question put above.