This afternoon the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., a copyright case most recently decided by the Federal Circuit in 2018. The grant comes on the heels of the case being listed for consideration at four of the Court’s conferences, including the last three in a row.
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. This week six new petitions were filed, along with a response to a petition and a reply in support of a petition. The Court denied one petition. Here are the details.
It was a busy week at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Three amicus briefs in favor of the respondent were filed in one of the four granted cases, Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP. With respect to petitions, multiple petitions were denied, two new petitions were filed, several party briefs were filed, and nine amicus briefs were filed in one case, Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC. We have the details.
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. While there is no new activity to report in the merits cases, the Supreme Court did deny two petitions for certiorari. And while no new petitions were filed this week, two reply briefs in support of petitions were filed, and as were several amicus briefs.
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in one of the six pending merits cases and also denied or dismissed 21 petitions. In addition, in the past week four new petitions were filed, three in patent cases and one in a government contract case. As well one response in opposition to a petition and two reply briefs in favor of certiorari were filed.
Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest, and—to put it lightly—the government had a tough go. Malcolm Stewart of the Office of the Solicitor General faced a barrage of questions finding fault with the government’s position that patent applicants must pay the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s attorneys’ fees when challenging rejections in federal district court. NantKwest’s Morgan Chu, by contrast, faced many questions seeking to clarify the historical record and NantKwest’s position, but few directly challenging NantKwest’s position on the merits.
Last week we provided a preview of the 27 petitions distributed for the Supreme Court’s October 1 conference in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Here is a report on the order list the Supreme Court issued today as a result of its October 1 conference. In a nutshell, the Court denied or dismissed petitions for certiorari in 21 cases decided by the Federal Circuit, and left six other petitions pending.
When a patent applicant challenges the U.S. Patent and Trademark’s rejection of her patent application, and in particular takes that challenge into federal district court rather than straight to the Federal Circuit—in order, for example, to introduce new evidence and obtain de novo review—must the applicant pay the USPTO’s personnel expenses of the district court proceeding? Indeed, must the applicant pay those expenses, including attorneys’ fees, regardless of whether the applicant wins or loses in court? Those are questions the Supreme Court will consider Monday, when it holds oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., the first of six Federal Circuit cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear during the 2019 Term.