Petitions / Supreme Court Activity
on

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

Here are the details.

Granted Cases

There is no new activity to report.

Petition Cases

New Petitions

The Supreme Court received four new petitions for writs of certiorari.

In RPM International Inc. v. Stuart, RPM asked the Court to review the following two questions:

  • “Whether the court of appeals erred by vacating and remanding the case based on an Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, challenge raised for the first time in a pre-briefing motion before the court of appeals.”
  • “Whether the court of appeals erred by holding administrative patent judges of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board are principal officers under the Appointments Clause.”

In Whitserve LLC v. Donuts Inc., Whitserve asked the Court to review the following question:

If a patentee makes factual assertions that its claimed invention is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, including assertions that the claimed invention does not consist of well understood, routine, or conventional activity and that the claimed invention is supported by evidence of commercial success, is a district court permitted to overlook the patentee’s assertions, find that the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, and dismiss the patentee’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) given the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6) analyses and the statutory presumption of § 282(a)?

In Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Bozeman asked the Court to review the following question:

Whether the regional Federal Reserve Banks—the ‘operating arms’ of the Federal Reserve System, which is the central bank of the United States—are ‘distinct’ from the Federal Government, and qualify as ‘persons’ permitted to seek post-issuance patent review under the America Invents Act, when the Federal Government may not under the Court’s holding in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv., 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019).

In Robles v. Wilkie, Robles filed a pro se petition asking the Court to review the following three questions:

  • “Did the fact that a response from the Respondent was not required in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims cause the court to assume the Petitioner’s ‘Extraordinary Writ’ for relief was filed in retaliation for an adverse decision by the Respondent for Veterans benefits?”
  • “Did erroneous ex parte communication between the Respondent and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims cause the court to view the ‘Extraordinary Writ’ as ‘. . . the Court construes as a request for a writ of mandamus . . .’?”
  • “Is it appropriate or even legal for the Federal Circuit Court to ignore obvious Civil and Constitutional rights violations by the Respondent simply to shield the lower court from embarrassment?”