This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- Steve Morsa submitted the only petition for writ of certiorari coming from the Federal Circuit this week in Morsa v. Iancu.
- For both Lea v. United States and LaTurner v. United States the government filed a singular brief in opposition opposing a writ for either petition.
- Lastly, two waivers of right to respond were submitted to the Supreme Court in both Thomas v. Iancu and Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.
Here are the details.
There is no new activity to report.
The Supreme Court received one new petition for writ of certiorari this week in Morsa v. Iancu. In the petition, Morsa argues his petition should be heard by the Court because the Federal Circuit ignored relevant precedent, ignored proof of no undue preemption, and established its own Section 101 law. Morsa further highlights the importance of his petition:
Companies and investors are withholding R&D and other investments they would have made before the CAFC and Patent Office went ineligibility amok. Waiting to intervene could inflict irreparable U.S. industry harm – especially in the economy-ravaged age of Covid-19. With Section § 101 Law now firmly and unconstitutionally in the malleable, unchecked hands of the Federal Circuit and Patent Office, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
This week, the United States filed a singular brief in opposition for the petitions Lea v. United States and LaTurner v. United States. In their brief, the government challenges both Arkansas’ and Kansas’ assertions that the States should be allowed to redeem United States Treasury Bonds without possessing the physical bonds or serial numbers and that the refusal to redeem said bonds constitutes an illegal taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The United States argues:
Those arguments lack merit, and the Federal Circuit’s decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals. In any event, the decision below lacks prospective significance because Treasury amended its regulations in 2015 to clarify that it will not entertain redemption requests of the type made here, which involve bonds that are not in a State’s possession.
Waivers of Right to Respond
Finally, two different parties submitted waivers of right to respond to the Supreme Court in two separate petitions, this week.
- In Thomas v. Iancu, Andrei Iancu, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, submitted his waiver of right to respond to the Court.
- Taser International, Inc. also submitted its waiver of right to respond to the Court in the petition Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.