Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. A new petition was filed presenting a question about the abstract-idea exception relating to patentability. A new waiver of the right to respond was also filed in a pro se case. Here are the details.
Granted Cases
There is no new activity to report.
Petitions
New Petition
Since our last update, one new petition was filed with the Court in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States. The petition presents the following question:
“Return Mail has a patent for processing undeliverable mail. This Court is familiar with it, since that patent was at issue in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. 618 (2019). After this Court’s remand, the lower courts held that Return Mail’s patent is invalid under the ‘abstract idea’ exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
“This Court tried to bring clarity to §101 a decade ago in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, stating a two-step test. 573 U.S. 208 (2014). But now all key decisionmakers—district courts, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the Federal Circuit— are deeply divided on how to apply that framework.”
“This Court recently asked the Solicitor General if it should revisit §101, and the Solicitor General twice recommended certiorari. See U.S.-Br.1 in Interactive Wearables v. Polar Electro Oy, Nos. 21-1281, 22-22, 2023 WL 2817859 (Apr. 5); U.S.-Br.1 in No. 20-891, Am. Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings, 2022 WL 1670811 (May 24).”
“The question presented, as framed by the Solicitor General in response to those CVSGs, is:”
- “Whether the claimed invention is ineligible for patent protection under the abstract-idea exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Waiver of Right to Respond
In Jones v. United States, a pro se case, the United States waived its right to respond to the petition.