This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- Two briefs in response to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Comcast in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and the second by the government in Strand v. United States.
- One waiver of right to respond to the petition in Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc. was filed with the Court by Tenant Turner.
- Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.
Here are the details.
There is no new activity to report.
Two new briefs in response to petitions were filed with the Supreme Court.
In Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast filed its brief in opposition to the petition, contending that
Rovi’s cross-petition should be denied because Rovi forfeited both the severability arguments it now seeks to raise in this Court, and its underlying Appointments Clause challenge. Comcast acknowledges that the Court may wish to hold the petition in an abundance of caution. Should the Court do so, Comcast respectfully submits that the proper ultimate disposition will be to deny certiorari, regardless of how the Court rules in Arthrex.
Petitioner contends  that the Secretary’s decision not to adjust petitioner’s service record must be set aside unless the Board’s recommendation to make such an adjustment was not supported by substantial evidence. The court of appeals correctly rejected that contention. And its decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or of another court of appeals. Further review is unwarranted.
Waivers of Right to Respond
The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., which presented the question of “[w]hether the ‘basic and novel properties’ identified in connection with a patent claim’s transitional phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ must independently satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, of the Patent Act, and the accompanying ‘reasonable certainty’ standard set forth in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014).”