This post summarizes the recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- The Supreme Court received responses for the following five petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission, and (5) Ford Motor Co. v. United States.
- The Supreme Court received replies in the four following petitions: (1) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., (3) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., and (4) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
- In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., Baxter International filed an amicus brief in favor of the respondent.
Here are the details.
Granted Cases
There is no new activity to report.
Petition Cases
New Petitions
There is no new activity to report.
New Responses
The Supreme Court received a total of seven responses coming from five cases this week. The details of each response are listed below:
- The United States filed its brief in opposition in American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States.
- In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, the ITC filed its brief and Rovi Corporation and Rovi Guides, Inc. also submitted its brief in opposition.
- Ale USA Inc. submitted its brief in opposition in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc.
- In CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission, both Ajinomoto Co. and the International Trade Commission submitted briefs in opposition.
- Finally, the United States submitted a brief in opposition in Ford Motor Co. v. United States.
Waivers of Right to Respond
Techtronic Industries Co. submitted a waiver of right to respond in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., et al.
New Replies
The Court received four replies in four separate petitions this week.
- In Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, Emerson Electric Co. submitted a reply to SIPCO, LLCs brief in opposition.
- Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. filed its reply to Becton, Dickenson and Co.’s brief in opposition in Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.
- In Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., et al. submitted a reply to Eli Lilly and Co.’s brief in opposition.
- Hospira, Inc. filed its reply to Eli Lilly and Co.’s brief in opposition in Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
Amicus Briefs
Baxter International, Inc. filed an amicus brief in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc. in favor of the respondent, Ale USA Inc., addressing “whether a judgment characterized as ‘final’ by the court issuing it, and by the appellate court affirming that ‘final’ judgment on appeal, should nonetheless be considered non-final to accommodate later collateral attack thereon.” Baxter International, Inc. concludes:
The answer to this question is intuitively ‘no,’ which is evident from the seemingly endless authority and commentary supporting that answer.
Denied Petitions
Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari for the following two cases this week: