Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, since our last update the Court has not granted any new petitions. Three new petitions, however, have since been filed: two in patent cases and one filed by a pro se petitioner. Additionally, a waiver of right to respond to one of the three new petitions was filed, and a brief in opposition was filed in a case that raises a question regarding Article III standing in a series of patent appeals. Here are the details.
No new activity.
Three new petitions were filed with the Court this past week.
In Gamon Plus, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Company, the Court is asked to review the following question:
- “Whether this Court should vacate the judgment below in view of its recent decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), and remand so that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may in turn order the Director (or Acting Director) to decide whether to rehear the petition filed by Respondents Campbell Soup Company, Campbell Sales Company, and Trinity Manufacturing, LLC.”
In Heat On-The-Fly, LLC v. Energy Heating, LLC, the following question was presented to the Court:
- “Must a district court consider litigation misconduct, or lack thereof, in determining whether a case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285?”
Additionally, a pro se petitioner filed a petition with the Court in Maxberry v. United States.
Waiver of Right to Respond
Campbell Soup Company waived its right to respond to the petition in Gamon Plus, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Company, which as shown above presents a question related to an Appointments Clause challenge.
Brief in Opposition
Qualcomm filed a brief in opposition in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., which raises a question related to standing in patent appeals. In its brief, Qualcomm asserted that Apple’s petition presented no important or unsettled legal issues, alleged no circuit split, and ultimately failed to link the relevant “patents’ invalidation to any cognizable consequence, much less to the alleviation of an actual injury.” Qualcomm further argued that the Federal Circuit correctly dismissed the appeal based upon “Apple’s mine-run failure to demonstrate factually its standing.” Accordingly, Qualcomm urged the Court to deny Apple’s petition.