Petitions / Supreme Court Activity

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petition cases, one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a case raising questions about procedure; a brief in opposition was submitted in another patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in two patent cases.

Granted Cases

There is no new activity to report.

Petition Cases

New Petition

One new petition was filed with the Court.

In SawStop Holding LLC v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, the petitioner asked the Court to consider the following questions:

  1. “Does the judiciary have the authority to require a patent applicant to meet a condition for patentability not required by the Patent Act?”
  2. “Is the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory double patenting ultra vires?”

Waiver of Right to Respond

The government waived its right to respond in Hyatt v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, a case raising two questions about procedure, including whether the ordinary summary judgment standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 applies to review of agency action.

Brief in Opposition

Qualcomm filed a brief in opposition to the petition in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., a patent case raising a question about standing of a licensee to challenge the validity of a patent covered by a license agreement that encompasses multiple patents. According to Qualcomm, “petitioner openly concedes [that] the petition in this case is ‘materially identical’ to the one in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated,” also known as “Apple I.” In light of the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in Apple I, Qualcomm maintains that “denial is the correct course here as well.” Qualcomm argues that “Apple made no effort whatsoever to link the patents’ invalidation to any cognizable consequence, much less to the alleviation of an actual, Article III injury.” Moreover, Qualcomm urges, “Apple’s simple failure to demonstrate factually its standing drove the result in this case, not any conflict with MedImmune or other precedents of [the Supreme] Court.” Accordingly, Qualcomm contends, “[t]he Court should deny the petition, just as it did in Apple I.”


The Supreme Court denied certiorari in the following cases:

We previously reported in more detail on the denial of certiorari in these two cases.