Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to pending cases, there was activity in only one case, the copyright case of Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. With respect to petitions cases, new petitions were filed in three patent cases, a response to a petition was filed in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and two parties waived their rights to respond to petitions. Here are the details.
In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the Court granted a motion by the Solicitor General for leave to participate in the oral argument. In addition, Google filed its reply brief. In it, Google reiterated its positions that the “Court should reject Oracle’s arguments for deeming the [relevant software] declarations protected by copyright and for overturning the jury’s holistic determination that Google’s conduct was fair use.”
Three new petitions were filed.
In INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc., INO Therapeutics filed a petition asking the Court to consider the following question:
- “Whether a method of treatment that requires doctors to selectively administer a drug to certain patients and not others to enhance patient outcomes is eligible for patent protection under Section 101 of the Patent Act.”
In Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Corporation, the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System filed a petition asking the Court to consider the following question:
- “Whether a state’s sovereign right to try its causes within its borders when there is personal jurisdiction over the defendant renders unconstitutional a federal patent venue statute applied to force the state sovereign to sue the in-state infringer in a federal court located in another state.”
In Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, Enzo Life Sciences filed a petition asking the Court to consider the following question:
- “Does the application of inter partes review to a patent that issued before the enactment of the AIA violate the Due Process Clause because it retroactively diminishes vested rights by lowering the burden of proof required to revoke a patent in an adversarial proceeding?”
A response to the petition was filed in Hollingsworth v. Department of Veterans Affairs. The petition presented two questions relevant to cases decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Waivers of Right to Respond
Two waivers were filed.
Praxair Distribution filed a waiver of its right to respond to the petition in INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc., which raised a question related to patent eligibility.
SIPCO waived its right to respond to the petition in Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, which presented a question related to the reviewability of the threshold determination of whether a challenged patent qualifies as a Covered Business Method patent in Covered Business Method Review proceedings.