Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no activity to report. With respect to petitions cases, one new petition was filed in a case presenting a question related to importation patent infringement and copyright infringement, and three amicus briefs were filed in support of a petition raising questions related to trade and procedural law. Additionally, the Supreme Court denied five petitions related to patent eligibility and veterans law. Here are the details.
There is no new activity to report in granted cases.
One new petition was filed. In Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Willowood asked the court to review the following two questions:
- “Whether liability for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(g) requires that all steps of a patented process must be practiced by, or at least attributable to, a single entity, a requirement that this Court previously recognized is a prerequisite for infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§271(a) and (b) in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 572 U.S. 915 (2014).”
- “Whether, by requiring EPA to grant expedited review and approval of labels for generic pesticides that are ‘identical or substantially similar’ to the previously approved labels for the same product, Congress intended to preclude claims of copyright infringement with respect to generic pesticide labels.”
Three new amicus briefs were filed in Ford Motor Co. v. United States, a case presenting two questions related to trade and procedural law. The amicus briefs all relate to trade law:
- The National Association of Manufacturers submitted a brief arguing that “the Federal Circuit’s ruling means that U.S. companies that import upstream goods for further manufacturing in the United States will face increased uncertainty as to the proper classification of goods at importation.” The brief asks the Court to “revisit and reaffirm [the] longstanding, workable principles governing tariff classification.”
- The American Association of Exporters and Importers also submitted a brief supporting the petition. The Association argues that “[t]he Federal Circuit’s holding blurs well-established rules of tariff construction and injects intolerable uncertainty into the classification of imported goods.”
- The Customs and International Trade Bar Association also submitted a brief in support of the petition. The brief argues that “[t]he Federal Circuit’s opinion . . . is directly contrary to Supreme Court precedent . . . and has broad reaching and negative consequences for the importing community.” It states that “the issue of the proper interpretation and application of the tariff statute warrants review by the Supreme Court.”
- Maxell, Ltd. v. Fandango Media, LLC (patent eligibility)
- Bible v. United States (pro se)
- Francway v. Wilkie (veterans law)
- Reese v. Sprint Nextel Corp. (patent eligibility)
- Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc. (patent eligibility)