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, the Court set a date for oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in two patent cases and waivers of right to respond were filed in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Granted Cases

In Harrow v. Department of Defense, the Court set the oral argument for Monday, March 25. In this case, the Court will review “whether the 60-day deadline in [5 U.S.C.] Section 7703(b)(1)(A) is jurisdictional.”


New Petitions

Two new petitions were filed with the Court.

In Liquidia Technologies, Inc. v. United Therapeutics Corporation, a patent case, the Court was asked to review the following questions:

  1. “Whether a party may be liable for induced patent infringement when the PTAB has already issued a final written decision determining that the same patent is invalid.”
  2. “Whether a final written decision of the PTAB remains preclusive while it is pending on appeal.”

In Ficep Corporation v. Peddinghaus Corporation, another patent case, the following questions were presented:

  1. “Does a claim directed to patent-eligible subject matter (here, manufacturing) nevertheless become ineligible as ‘abstract’ if the process is improved using automation?”
    • “Should an ‘abstract-idea’ behind a claim to a patent-eligible process be identified and, if so, how and at what level of abstraction?”
  2. “What is the appropriate standard for determining whether a claim is ‘inventive,’ conferring eligibility under Alice Step 2, including whether objective evidence of inventiveness and technological improvement is relevant?”
  3. “Is either what a claim is ‘directed to’ and whether that is abstract, or whether a claim is ‘inventive’ as articulated in Alice step 2, only for a judge to decide as a legal matter or does it include fact issues and, if the latter, are they for a jury?”

Waivers of Right to Respond

Waivers of right to respond were filed in two cases.

In Liquidia Technologies, Inc. v. United Therapeutics Corporation, the patent case mentioned above related to the preclusive effect of PTAB judgments, United Therapeutics Corporation waived its right to respond.

In Adams v. Merit Systems Protection Board, a pro se case, the government waived its right to respond.