This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- After receiving three petitions last week, the Supreme Court received yet another petition from Lakshmi Arunachalam in Lakshmi Arunachalam, Petitioner v. SAP America, Inc.
- In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the petitioner submitted its reply to the Court, denouncing the claims made by the respondent and further advocating for their writ to be granted.
- Finally, the Supreme Court denied a total of eight different petitions this week, among that group of denied petitions are cases like Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp. and Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission. For the full list of denied petitions, see the list below.
Here are the details.
Granted Cases
There is no new activity to report.
Petition Cases
New Petitions
The Petitioner, Lakshmi Arunachalam, submitted yet another petition to the Supreme Court this past week in Lakshmi Arunachalam, Petitioner v. SAP America, Inc. This new petition follows the three other petitions Arunachalam submitted to the Court last week. In the petition, Arunachalam presents a total of eight different questions to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. All eight of the questions presented can be read here.
New Replies
In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Arthrex submitted its reply to Smith & Nephew’s and the United States’ briefs in opposition. In the reply, Arthrex further advocates for the Supreme Court’s review of both Congress’s ability to apply inter partes review retroactively to patents and the Federal Circuit’s refusal to apply “its intervening Appointments Clause Decision to this case.” Specifically, the Petitioner argues:
Respondents nowhere deny that whether Congress can apply inter partes review retroactively to patents that predate the America Invents Act is an important and recurring issue. This Court is currently considering three other petitions raising the question.
Waivers of Right to Respond
Additionally, the Supreme Court received two waivers of right to respond from respondents in two separate petitions.
- In BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Aquestive Theraputics, Inc. submitted its waiver of right to respond.
- Also, the Department of Veteran’s affairs submitted its waiver of right to respond in Tonya Knowles, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs
Denied Petitions
The Supreme Court denied the following eight petitions this week:
- Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp.
- Todd C. Bank, Petitioner v. Al Johnson’s Swedish Restaurant & Butik, Inc.
- American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States
- Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission
- Baley v. United States
- Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company
- Celgene Corp. v. Peter
- CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission