This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- Two new petitions were docketed by the Supreme Court this week. Those cases were B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Facebook, Inc. and Tonya Knowles, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
- The Supreme Court received four separate replies for the following petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Baley v. United States, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., and (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission.
- Finally, two new amicus briefs were submitted to the Court this week. The first by the Center for Auto Safety in Callan Campbell v. United States and the second by ACT | The App Association in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
Here are the details.
There is no new activity to report.
In B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Facebook, Inc., the petitioner presented the following issue for review:
[D]oes the standard for determining whether a defendant is a ‘prevailing party’ require the ‘material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties’ marked by ‘judicial imprimatur,’ or, as the Federal Circuit held, is any ‘rebuffing’ of the plaintiff, with or without a material alteration of the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, sufficient?
Additionally, the Supreme Court also added the petition for Tonya Knowles, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs to their docket. Keep following our coverage for updates regarding this petition.
In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Rovi Corporation, and Rovi Guides, Inc. submitted a supplemental brief following their brief in opposition submitted last week. Rovi Guides, Inc. submitted this supplemental brief in response to the government’s change in position on the question of “mootness” in which the government now agrees with the petitioners that the Federal Circuit should have dismissed the appeal as moot. The respondents argue the following:
[T]he correct course under this Court’s practice—and the government’s own longstanding views—is for the Court to deny the petition. That result is all but dictated by traditional standards and practices the government does not even address. This is not a court of error-correction. The mootness issue Comcast raises is no exception.
The Court received four replies in four separate petitions this week.
- In American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, the American Institute for International Steel, et al. submitted their reply to the United States’ brief in opposition.
- Lonny Baley submitted a reply to the United States’ brief in opposition in Baley v. United States.
- In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., Chrimar Systems, Inc. submitted their reply to Ale USA Inc.’s brief in opposition.
- CJ CheilJeddang Corp., et al. submitted their reply to the International Trade Commission’s and Ajinomoto Co., Inc.’s briefs in opposition in CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission.
ACT | The App Association filed an amicus brief in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson in favor of the petitioners, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited. The App Association argues “that the Federal Circuit misconstrues the FRAND commitment and is confusing contract and equitable estoppel remedies with that of regular patent damage cases.” In their brief, the App Association elaborates:
The Federal Circuit’s decision departs from precedent and threatens to reduce transparency in court determinations of FRAND licensing amounts, inserting uncertainty into the balance in private negotiations that rely on such FRAND determinations, ultimately jeopardizing the stability of the open standards system.
In Callan Campbell v. United States, the Center for Auto Safety also submitted an amicus brief in favor of the petitioner, Callan Campbell. In their brief, the Center for Auto Safety addressed the question of whether “the Federal Circuit err[ed] when it held that the accident victims’ takings claim nevertheless accrued under the Tucker Act before their personal injury claims were affected by the sale agreement[.]” The Center for Auto Safety concluded:
This Court should review the Federal Circuit’s decision holding that an as-applied regulatory takings claim becomes ripe when the government reaches its final decision—not when the decision is implemented, takes legal effect, or causes an actual injury—to take the property in question.