This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- The following five new petitions were submitted to the Court: (1) Primbas, et al. v. Iancu, (2) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc., et al., (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., (4) Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., and (5) Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
- Also, in Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Willowood, LLC submitted its reply to Syngenta’s brief in opposition. Willowood claims Syngenta’s brief avoids the key issues raised in the petition.
- Lastly, the Supreme Court received two waivers of right to respond for the petitions of Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank and Richard Polidi v. Michelle K. Lee, et al.
Here are the details.
There is no new activity to report.
This week, the Supreme Court received five new petitions for writ of certiorari. The five new petitions are as follows:
- Primbas, et al. v. Iancu
- Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc., et al.
- Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al.
- Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al.
- Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Furthermore, in the petition Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Willowood, LLC submitted their reply to Syngenta Crop Protection’s brief in opposition. In the brief, Willowood defends both their patent and copyright issues raised in their petition for writ of certiorari. Regarding the patent issue, Willowood claims that Syngenta sidestepped Willowood’s “central assertion” in the petition. Specifically, Willowood argues:
In opposing Willowood’s assertion that the Federal Circuit erred in its interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §271(g), Syngenta focuses solely on the acts of importing, offering to sell, and selling a product in the United States made by a patented process while side stepping Willowood’s central assertion that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation opens the door for the possibility (and indeed, the reality in this case) that the importer of a product may be held liable for patent infringement even when the method by which that product was made did not infringe the asserted patent upon which infringement is based.
As for the copyright issue, Willowood advances a similar “side stepping” argument by claiming that Syngenta avoided Willowood’s argument raised in the petition by merely opposing “Willowood’s assertion that the Federal Circuit incorrectly construed FIFRA.” Willowood contends:
In its Petition for Certiorari, Willowood argued that because FIFRA permits generic pesticide labels to be ‘identical or substantially similar’ to previously-approved labels, it necessarily precludes copyright infringement claims as to those labels. Syngenta has no answer to the question of how a multi-page, complex pesticide label could be ‘identical or substantially similar’ to a previously approved label unless it were copied – and therefore, how Congress could have authorized ‘identical or substantially similar’ labels without also permitting copying.
Waivers of Right to Respond
Finally, the Supreme Court received two new waivers of right to respond in two different petitions this week.