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.
Activity in Granted Cases
There is no new activity to report in any of the six cases currently pending at the Supreme Court.
Activity in Petition Cases
Grants and Denials
The Court did not grant any petition, but it did deny petitions for certiorari in two pro se cases, Swisher v. Wilkie and Rogero v. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
No new petitions were filed.
No responses to petitions were filed. Several respondents waived their rights to respond to petitions:
- In Grober v. Mako Products, Inc., Varnell & Warwick P.A. waived its right to respond.
- In Technology Properties Limited LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. waived their right to respond.
- In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC, IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC waived their right to respond.
- In Neology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the International Trade Commission waived its right to respond.
- In Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc. v. Perrigo Company, Perrigo Company and L. Perrigo Company waived their right to respond.
In Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., the petitioner filed a reply brief arguing that, “[i]n view of Respondent’s failure to cross-appeal/petition, this case is a clean and exceptional vehicle to review the unprecedented exercise of jurisdiction by the Federal Circuit, resolve a plain circuit split, and to directly address issues that were not considered in this Court’s prior decisions.”
In Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., the petitioner filed a reply brief arguing that “the [apportionment of patent damages] rule Petitioners seek is the one Congress enacted and that this Court applied in dozens of decisions between 1853 and 1915,” and that “[u]nder this Court’s precedent, 35 U.S.C. §112’s written description demands substantive disclosure of what is claimed, to ensure that the claims do not reach beyond what the inventor actually invented.”
New Amicus Briefs
Six amicus briefs were filed in Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind v. PDS Consultants, a case at the intersection of the Tucker Act, bid protests, and veterans’ preferences. All of the following amici support the petitioner:
- Alphapointe et al.
- National Association for Employment of People Who are Blind
- City of Winston-Salem
- American Council of the Blind
- National Industries for the Blind
Three amicus briefs were also filed in Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, a case presenting the question of whether inter partes review proceedings brought against state universities are barred by sovereign immunity. All of the following amici also support the petitioner:
- Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
- States of Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas
- Twelve State Universities and State University Systems
Distributed for Conference
The following cases were distributed for the Court’s next conference, which is tomorrow, October 18:
- Grober v. Mako Products, Inc.
- Eli Lilly and Co. v. Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR
- Katzin v. United States
Grober is a pro se case, Eli Lily a patent case, and Katzin a takings case. We will report on any orders related to them next week.