This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- One new petition for certiorari was filed in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
- In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two briefs in opposition were filed. One brief from Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthroCare Corp. and the other from the United States.
- The Supreme Court received a total of five amicus briefs this week. Four amicus briefs in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and one amicus brief in Callan Campbell v. United States.
- In Ford Motor Co. v. United States, Ford submitted its reply to the United States’ brief in opposition.
Here are the details.
There is no new activity to report.
In Ameranth, Inc., Petitioner v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, et al., the petitioner presented the following question for review:
Does the sua sponte judicial resolution on summary judgment of issues expressly excluded by pretrial order, and on which the moving party submitted no evidence to meet its burden, deprive petitioner of valuable property rights in violation of the Due Process Clause and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Alternatively, should the case be remanded to the Federal Circuit in light of this Court’s recent holding on the party presentment rule in United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 206 L. Ed.
2d 866 (2020)?
In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthroCare Corp. submitted their brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari. In their response, both parties argue both the retroactivity and forfeiture questions do not warrant review by the Supreme Court. Specifically, they contend:
[B]ecause [the] petitioner’s patent [was] issued years after the AIA was enacted, there is no issue of retroactivity in this case. . . . [A]nd the courts of appeals unanimously agree that mentioning an issue only in a Rule 28(j) letter (as petitioner did) is not sufficient to preserve it.
Similarly, in this case, the United States also submitted its brief in opposition to the petition. Like in the above brief, the United States argues:
Even if the application of inter partes review to petitioner’s patent were properly considered retroactive, the court of appeals correctly concluded that a retroactive application of the AIA would not violate the Due Process Clause. . . . [T]he court of appeals’ denial of panel rehearing and rehearing en banc presents no difficult or important forfeiture issue.
Ford Motor Co., in Ford Motor Co. v. United States, submitted its reply to the United States’ brief in opposition. In their reply, Ford argues that their petition should be granted because the Federal Circuit’s ruling “conflicts with decisions of [the Supreme Court] and all Courts of Appeals, violates fundamental principles of appellate procedure, and will be highly problematic for future litigants.” More specifically, the respondents argue:
The Federal Circuit’s rule that eo nomine tariff headings that “inherently suggest a type of use” should be applied based on how goods are modified and used after importation is flatly contrary to [the Supreme Court’s] bedrock precedent that goods must be classified based on their objective condition at the time of importation.
In TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, the Supreme Court received the following four amicus briefs:
- U-blox Holding AG submitted its amicus brief in favor of the petitioner.
- Together, of High Tech Inventors Alliance, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Google LLC, and HTC Corp. submitted their amicus brief in favor of the petitioner.
- The Fair Standards Alliance submitted its amicus brief in favor of the petitioner.
- Finally, Twenty Legal Scholars submitted its amicus brief in favor of the petitioner.
Additionally, in Callan Campbell v. United States, the Center for Auto Safety submitted an amicus brief in favor of the petitioner.