Supreme Court Activity
on

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

The Supreme Court received petitions for writ of certiorari in (1) Frederick Demond Wilson v. United States, (2) David O. Keel, v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, (3) Chris Jaye v. United States, (4) B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., and (5) adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.

Several amicus briefs were filed in United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

Granted Cases

There is no new activity to report.

Petition Cases

New petitions

The Supreme Court received several new petitions for writ of certiorari.

In Chris Jaye v. United States, the petitioner presented the following issues for review:

Has the US Court of Federal Claims and US Court of appeals for the Federal Circuit acting in opposition to controlling law (.Erickson v. Pardus, Johnson v. City of Shelby) by implementing its own pleading standard different from other circuits?

Does a federal judge have the right to impose his/her own will and wants into a citizen’s complaint to alter the facts alleged as a basis for dismissal? Can a federal judge impose presumed limits on the jurisdiction of a federal court to deprive a citizen the right to petition her own government (First Amendment.)?

What remedies exist in the law when lies are not corrected and not addressed in the record? What remedies exist in the law when a judge (protected by judicial immunity) illegally dismisses a valid case? How does a citizen remedy this wrong and deprivation of a right (First Amendment) caused by the lies of a judge?

In B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., the petitioner presented the following issue for review:

In an inter partes review proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), does the Board have authority to consider unpatentability on a ground of obviousness that is not “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications?

In adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., the petitioner presented the following issues for review:

Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent, or “inferior Officers” whose appointment Congress has permissibly vested in a department head.

Whether, if administrative patent judges are principal officers, the court of appeals properly cured any Appointments Clause defect in the current statutory scheme prospectively by severing the application of 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) to those judges.

New Responses

There is no new activity to report.

New Replies

There is no new activity to report.

Amicus Briefs

Several amicus briefs were filed in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. by the following parties: