Featured / Supreme Court Activity
on

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a new amicus brief was filed in President Trump’s case addressing his tariffs. Regarding pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a trademark case, a new amicus brief was filed in a patent case, two new waivers of the right to respond were filed in pro se cases, and thirteen petitions were denied by the Supreme Court in cases raising questions related to patent law, the Lanham Act, military disability retirement benefits, and due process. Here are the details.

Granted Petitions

The only case pending at the Supreme Court that was decided by the Federal Circuit is Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. Since our last update, one new amicus brief has been filed. It argues in favor of the Federal Circuit’s judgment.

Pending Petitions

New Petition

Since our last update, PT Medisafe Technologies filed a petition in PT Medisafe Technologies v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a trademark case. The petition asks the Court to review the following question:

  • “Does the ‘generic name’ requirement of the trademark statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3), apply equally to all marks or is there a special rule for color trademarks?”

Amicus Brief

Since our last update, an amicus brief was filed in MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. Filed by Unified Patents, LLC, the brief supports MSN Pharmaceuticals.

The petition asked the Court to consider:

  • “Whether, in a patent-infringement suit, a court may consider after-arising technology to hold that the patent is invalid under § 112(a) of the Patent Act.”

In its brief, Unified Patents argues the “Court’s guidance is needed to explain how and when after-arising technology may be used to assess compliance with Section 112 of the Patent Act.” According to the brief, there is “conflicting precedent within the Federal Circuit.” Unified Patents describes two different lines of cases, one of which “assumes a singular claim scope for both the patentee’s right to exclude and his duty to disclose.” According to Unified Patents, the other line of cases “allows for different claim constructions for different purposes.” Unified Patents argues this “uncertainty extends across technological areas, encourages predatorial patent litigation, and is the antithesis of the predictability that promotes investment in innovation.” Unified Patent suggests the Court “should reject the inconsistent treatment of claim scope for infringement and validity purposes” in the second line of cases.

Waivers of Right to Respond

Since our last update, waivers of the right to respond to petitions have been filed in the following cases:

Denied Petitions

Since our last update, the Supreme Court denied thirteen petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit: