Petitions / Supreme Court Activity

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

Activity in Granted Cases

New Responses

In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, Click-to-Call Technologies filed its response brief arguing that “Congress placed a clear limit on the USPTO’s authority, and nothing in [35 U.S.C. §] 314(d) suggests that Congress left the agency as the sole arbiter of its own jurisdiction.” “Yet according to the government and petitioner,” Click-to-Call Technologies continues, “the USPTO has the exclusive authority to say what this statutory restriction means, and Section 314(d) prohibits the courts from reviewing the USPTO’s interpretation of its own power. This is wrong.”

New Amicus Briefs

In Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Americans for Prosperity filed an amicus brief in support of the government, arguing that the “Framers exclusively granted Congress the power of the purse—and did so with good reason.” According to Americans for Prosperity, “Petitioners ask the judiciary to act as appropriator and override Congress’s constitutional authority.” Their brief goes on to explain that “Petitioners focus on points of jurisprudential finery: implied repeal, appropriations riders, legislative history, and intertwined court precedent. But this case is not so complicated.”

Activity in Petition Cases

Grants and Denials

The Court did not grant or deny any petitions.

New Petitions

One new pro se petition was filed. In Miles v. Azar, petitioner asked the Court to review the following questions:

1. “Where the special master of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) (hereafter noted as ‘the Program’) violates the 2017 Secretary of Health and Human Services’ (hereafter referred to as ‘the Secretary’ or ‘respondent’) posted Rule that revised the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) (hereafter noted as ‘the Act’), under what circumstance can the special master arbitrarily overlook the Secretary’s policy changes to shape a capricious decision?”

2. “Where the name implies a childhood law, does the Act fairly represent the rights of children in a ‘person’ law and the constitutional right to a fair jury trial?”

3. “Where the Constitution mandates justice for all, does the Program adequately offer resources and legal representation to petitioners with disabilities?”

4. “Where the Act was written to protect commercial interests for public health concerns, where is a line drawn to protect an individual’s constitutional rights to make informed decisions, to discuss ideas and science, and to freely make choices regarding drug and safety issues?”

5. “Where the Secretary manages multiple healthcare regulatory agencies, under what circumstances can the Program offer nonconforming science and facts which violate administrative and regulatory rules if held independently as facts?”

6. “Where the Secretary promises citizens to operate with utmost care and efficiency, under what discretion may the Secretary or any agent violate this promise by adding regulation and rules with no certified cost savings and dire added risks?”

New Responses

In Neology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc., Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corp, Kapsch TrafficCom Canada, Inc., Star Systems International, Ltd., and Star RFID Co., Ltd. waived their right to respond to the petition.

New Replies

In Straight Path IP Group, LLC v. Apple Inc., the petitioner filed its reply brief arguing that “due process of law is denied when the Federal Circuit affirms with no explanation” because “[n]o one (except the judges on the Federal Circuit panel) knows why the Federal Circuit summarily rejected petitioner’s appeal even though two serious legal issues were argued.”

New Amicus Briefs

In Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, Professors Jeffrey A. Lefstin and Peter S. Menell submitted an amicus brief highlighting that “[t]his case provides an ideal vehicle for the Supreme Court to revisit the standards for patent eligibility on the basis of thorough briefing of the proper statutory and jurisprudential considerations.”