Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Parties filed new petitions in two cases. Several amici filed amicus briefs in Baley v. United States.
There is no new activity to report.
In Kaneka Corporation v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Company, the petitioner presented the following issues for review:
- “Whether under Rule 36 of the Federal Circuit’s Rules of Procedure the Federal Circuit may affirm a judgment of non-infringement without opinion and on alternative grounds first raised by the respondents at oral argument where affirmance of the judgment depends on genuine issues of disputed material fact as to infringement identified by the district court in denial of respondents’ summary judgment and not yet determined by a jury in violation of Securities Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments.”
- “Whether under Rule 36 of the Federal Circuit’s Rules of Procedure the Federal Circuit may affirm a void stipulated judgment of non-infringement without opinion and thereby reverse without appellate jurisdiction a district court’s finding of genuine issues of disputed material fact as to infringement and reasoned denial of summary judgment in violation of Taylor v. McKeithen, 407 U.S. 191 (1972) and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments.”
- “Whether under Rule 36 of the Federal Circuit’s Rules of Procedure the Federal Circuit may affirm judgment of non-infringement without opinion and without resolving conflicting claim constructions of two district courts and thereby prevent a patentee from enforcing its valid patents in violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment, and Congress’ mandate that the Federal Circuit unify decisions in patent cases.”
In Todd C. Bank v. Al Johnson’s Swedish Restaurant & Butik, Inc., the petitioner presented the following issues for review:
- “In Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), this Court held that the disparagement clause of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which ‘prohibit[s] the registration of trademarks that may “disparage … or bring … into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead,”‘ Tam, 137 S. Ct. at 1751, quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) (ellipses in original), violates the First Amendment. The question is whether Tam thereby precluded disparagement as the basis of one’s standing under Section 14 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1064, to challenge the validity of a trademark where the basis of the merits of the challenge, i.e., the challenger’s assertion as to why the mark is invalid, is unrelated to disparagement.”
- “Whether a federal appeals court abuses its authority by sanctioning a party for arguing in favor of his position, even though: (i) the arguments and the position are meritorious; and (ii) the court claimed that the party had conceded that his position had been foreclosed by a decision of this Court, whereas the party, rather than having made such a concession, had argued that his position was not foreclosed by that decision.”
Amici filed several amicus briefs in Baley v. United States this week: