Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the two pending cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case and two pro se cases; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; and three briefs in opposition were filed, two in a patent case and one in a takings case. Here are the details.
Pending Cases
Since our last update, there has been no activity at the Supreme Court in the two cases pending at the Court that were decided by the Federal Circuit. As a reminder, in January, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a patent case addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent infringement.
Pending Petitions
New Petitions
Since our last update, three new petitions have been filed in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
In Sauer West LLC v. United States, a takings case, Sauer West filed a petition asking the Court to consider the following question:
- “Whether the Surface Transportation Board’s issuance of a Notice of Interim Trail Use and accompanying authorization of recreational trail use triggers a per se categorical physical taking under the Trails Act.”
In Wright v. Collins, a pro se case, Paul Wright filed a petition asking the Court to review the following question:
- “Is an impacted veteran entitled to judicial review of a definitive decision by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assert jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A or 511(a), rather than deliver disability benefits the veteran has claimed pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5102?”
In House v. General Electric Co., a pro se party filed a petition.
Waiver of the Right to Respond
Since our last update, a waiver of the right to respond to the petition was filed in Williamson v. Collins, a pro se case.
Briefs in Opposition
Since our last update, briefs in opposition have been filed in a patent case and a takings case.
Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
In this patent case, Samsung Electronics and the government have each filed a brief in opposition. As a reminder, the petition asked the Court to review the following question:
- “Whether patent applications that became publicly accessible only after the challenged patent’s critical date are ‘prior art . . . printed publications’ within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §311(b).”
Now, in its brief in opposition, Samsung Electronics argues “the Federal Circuit correctly determined that a published patent application asserted as a printed publication in an inter partes review of a pre-AIA patent constitutes prior art as of its filing date.” Samsung Electronics contends Lynk Labs failed to identify “any other statutory provision that would justify giving such publications a different priority date in the context of inter partes review than they carry in district court proceedings (or in the initial patent application process).”
In its brief in opposition, the government maintains the Federal Circuit “correctly rejected” Lynk Labs’ contention that a patent application “filed before the priority date” of the relevant patent “but was not published until after that date . . . could not be considered as prior art in an IPR of that patent.” According to the government, the Federal Circuit’s decision “does not warrant” the Supreme Court’s review. Additionally, it asserts, the “petitioner’s argument is foreclosed by the text of Section 102(e)(1) and the special timing rule it establishes.”
United Water Conservation District v. United States
In this takings case, the United States filed a brief in opposition. As a reminder, the petition presented the following question:
- “Whether the government’s appropriation of water that a person had a property right to use is analyzed as a physical taking, rather than a regulatory taking, under the Fifth Amendment.”
Now, in its brief in opposition, the United States argues the Federal Circuit “correctly held” that the United Water Conservation District’s takings allegations “do not state a claim for a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment, and its decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals.” Additionally, the United States contends, this case is a “poor vehicle for the Court’s review because petitioner’s framing of the question presented rests on the erroneous premise that the government imposed a compulsory restriction on petitioner’s diversion of water.”