Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed with the Court: one in a veterans case, one challenging the Federal Circuit’s use of summary affirmances, and two in pro se cases. The government waived its right to respond in a contract case, and a private party waived its right to respond in the case addressing the Federal Circuit’s use of summary affirmances. Finally, the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.
Granted Cases
There is no new activity to report.
Petition Cases
New Petitions
Four new petitions were filed with the Court.
In Skaar v. McDonough, the petitioner asked the Court to review the following question:
- “Does the Veterans Court have statutory or inherent authority to include veterans whose individual claims are not yet exhausted in a class seeking injunctive relief, where the court has jurisdiction over a named representative’s claim?”
In Virentem Ventures v. Google LLC, the petitioner asked the Court to review the following questions:
- “Does the Federal Circuit’s use of Rule 36 to affirm without opinion PTAB invalidity determinations that are challenged based on pure questions of law violate a patentee’s due process rights through arbitrary or disparately applied results?”
- “Did the Federal Circuit’s use of Rule 36 to affirm without opinion PTAB invalidity determinations of Virentem’s patents violate its due process rights?”
- “Did the PTAB’s adoption, and Federal Circuit’s summary affirmance, of broad constructions of Time Scale Modification and other claim terms over Virentem’s explicit narrowing definitions, violate the Federal Circuit’s own law and precedents on claim construction in such circumstances?”
- “Does the Federal Circuit’s use of Rule 36 to affirm without opinion decisions from the PTAB violate the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 144 that the Federal Circuit ‘shall issue to the Director its mandate and opinion’?”
In Califorrniaa v. Vidal, a pro se petitioner filed a petition.
In Wakefield v. Blackboard, another pro se petitioner filed a petition.
Waivers of Right to Respond
The government waived its right to respond in Calapristi v. United States, a government contract case.
Google waived its right to respond in Virentem Ventures v. Google LLC, the case discussed above challenging the Federal Circuit’s use of summary affirmances under Rule 36.
Denial
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Jump Rope Systems, LLC v. Coulter Ventures, LLC a patent case.