This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- The Supreme Court received six new petitions this week in (1) BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., (2) Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc., (3) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank., (4) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., et al., (5) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and (6) Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
- In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Comcast submitted its reply to the ITC’s brief in opposition.
- Finally, the State of Indiana submitted identical amicus briefs in favor of the petitioners in both Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States and Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States.
Here are the details.
The petition in Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC was granted. The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for further consideration in light of Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 590 U. S. _ (2020). We discussed the result in Thryv in a recent post.
The Supreme Court added a total of six new petitions to their docket this week. All six petitions are listed below:
- BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
- Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.
- Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank
- Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., et al.
- Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Comcast Corp. submitted its reply to the International Trade Commission’s brief in opposition. In its brief, Comcast argues that the Supreme Court should reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision because the appeal became moot before the court rendered its decision and, even without mootness, the Court should still reverse the lower court’s decision. The Petitioners argue the case warrants review because:
The court held that Comcast’s set-top boxes are ‘articles that infringe,’ even though the Commission found that they do not directly infringe any patent, they are staple articles with substantial noninfringing uses, they lack any functionality directed to infringement, and they cannot be used in an infringing manner on their own.
Additionally, the State of Indiana submitted the same amicus brief for the two petitions Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States, and Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States. In its brief, the State of Indiana argued for the petitioners, contending that the lower court’s decision upsets the balance between federal and state power. Specifically:
[The lower court’s decision] accepted a novel interpretation of a longstanding agency regulation, and it concluded that this regulation preempted the state escheat laws Treasury endorsed just a few years ago. The decision below thereby threatens to invalidate dozens of state laws and frustrate States’ attempts to return billions of dollars to their citizens.
New Waivers of Right to Respond
This week, the Supreme Court received two waivers of right to respond in two separate petitions.
- In Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, Domino’s Pizza, LLC submitted its waiver of right to respond.
- Additionally, in B.E. Technology, L.L.C., v. Facebook, Inc., Facebook, Inc. also waived its right to respond.
Finally, the Supreme Court denied the following two petitions this week: