Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; four waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two patent cases and a pro se case; and one brief in opposition was filed in an Indian Tucker Act case. Here are the details.
New Petitions
Since our last update, two new petitions have been filed in cases decided by the Federal Circuit:
US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC
In this case, US Patent No. 7,679,637 filed a petition asking the Court to review the following questions:
- “Whether a court applying Alice may hold patent claims ineligible at both steps because they do not describe how their result is achieved, so that the identity of the abstract idea has no effect on the outcome, converting 35 U.S.C. § 101 into a disclosure inquiry that belongs to 35 U.S.C. § 112, conducted without evidence, claim construction, or the challenger’s burden of proof.”
- “Whether a patent-infringement complaint may be dismissed because the patent owner did not plead facts negating ineligibility, an invalidity defense that 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) requires the accused infringer to plead, and where leave to add those facts was denied as futile.”
Soto v. United States Postal Service
In this pro se case, Soto filed a petition asking the Court to review two questions.
Waiver of the Right to Respond
Since our last update, four waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in the following cases:
- Federal Express Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. (patent)
- US Patent No. 7,679,637 v. Google LLC (patent)
- Lopez v. Collins (pro se)
Brief in Opposition
Since our last update, one brief in opposition was filed. It comes in Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States, an Indian Tucker Act case. As a reminder, the petition in this case presented the following questions:
- “Is the United States’ promise to provide the Winnemucca Indian Colony, a federally recognized Tribe with lands held in trust established by an Executive Order and a separate legislative act, coupled with the government’s nearly exclusive statutory and regulatory control over the water on Indian lands, sufficient to entitle an Indian tribe to money damages when the United States breaches its fiduciary duty to protect the natural resources on those Indian lands?”
- “Did the Federal Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, err when it affirmed dismissal of the Winnemucca Indian Colony’s third claim for relief – Breach of Trust – Water?”
- “Can the Winnemucca Indian Colony state a cognizable claim for breach of trust against the United States in relation to BIA failure to prevent trespass and theft of natural resources by third parties, under the Winters doctrine and 25 C.F.R. § 152.22?”
Now, in its brief in opposition, the United States contends “petitioner failed to establish the CFC’s jurisdiction over its Third Claim under the Tucker and Indian Tucker Acts seeking damages for a third party’s alleged diversion of water from the Tribe’s reservation.” Furthermore, the United States claims, “[r]eview is particularly unwarranted because—as the CFC further held—the jurisdictional bar in 28 U.S.C. 1500 and the statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. 2501 both confirm that the CFC lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim.”