Here is an update on activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed, two in patent cases and one in a pro se case. In the first patent case, the petition raises a question related to summary affirmances of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the second patent case, the question relates to personal jurisdiction. Here are the details.
Granted Cases
There is no new activity to report.
Petition Cases
New Petitions
In ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., a patent case, ParkerVision asked the Court to review the following question:
- “Whether 35 U.S.C. § 144, which requires the Federal Circuit to issue ‘opinion[s]’ in PTAB appeals, is a reason-giving directive that prohibits the Federal Circuit’s practice, under Federal Circuit Rule 36(a), of summarily affirming PTAB decisions without issuing opinions.”
In Lighting Defense Group LLC v. SnapRays, LLC, another patent case, Lighting Defense Group asked the Court to review the following question:
- “Whether a defendant subjects itself to personal jurisdiction anywhere a plaintiff operates simply because the defendant knows its out-of-forum other conduct ‘would necessarily affect marketing, sales, and activities’ within the forum, Pet.App.11a—even though the defendant has no contacts with the plaintiff or the forum whatsoever.”
In Anoruo v. Department of Veterans Affairs, a pro se case, Anoruo asked the Court to review the following questions:
- “Whether [the Fifth] Amendment [D]ue [P]rocess [C]lause of the [C]onstitution of the United States is impeded if fairness of the performance appraisal, performance improvement plan and in discovery proceeding of relevant material facts needed to fully develop a record is prevented.”
- “Whether the Petition Clause of the First Amendment is violated if false metrics/data, unsupported testimonial evidence, misrepresentation about material facts, libelous and harmful falsehoods is used to rate and review employee performance appraisal and rate and fact-finding for allegations of harassment at workplace.”
- “Whether appellant exhausted his administrative remedies with office of special counsel (OSC) in the disclosure of waste of about additional 2 million dollars in partial prescription fills, the deletion of [the] patient prescription activity log, and the complaint to office of inspector general (OIG) on [September 13, 2020] that was reviewed by the agency on February [8], 2021[,] which may have contributed to the issuance of performance improvement plan (PIP) and fact-finding on workplace harassment charge in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1001 and appellant[’s] [F]irst and [F]ifth [A]mendment right[s] of the [C]onstitution?”
- “Whether this [C]ourt can review the credibility determination of [an] administrative judge if presented with sufficiently sound reasons to overturn the decision and/or to determine negative suitability of the credibility determination based on evidence on the record as determined.”
- “Whether the merit panel and [M]erit [S]ystem [P]rotection Board (MSPB) should transfer discrimination claims to district court if it does not have jurisdiction instead of outright denial.”