Petitions / Supreme Court Activity
on

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 related to the same pro se case. Additionally, three briefs in opposition were filed in two patent cases. Here are the details.

Granted Cases

There is no new activity to report.

Petitions

New Petitions

Four new petitions were filed with the Court by the same pro se petitioner. In the first of these petitions, Adams v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Adams I), Adams submitted the following questions for review:

  1. “Whether CAFC made an error in their decision to dismiss CAFC 2023-1698 (DC- 3443-18-0288-1-1) which was about DIA’s Admin Judge’s Failure to Postpone Clearance Hearing Long Enough For Me To Get A Lawyer, And DIA’s Admin Judge’s Failure To Consider My Legitimate Discrimination and Retaliation Concerns in the Clearance Revocation Hearing, And whether Employer Discrimination is going to be allowed to flourish in the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). And whether CAFC Violated Constitutional Law when they failed to address the discrimination by MDA and DIA.”
  2. “Whether anyone or any organization can deny access to EEO records in a Discrimination Case, Complaint or Appeal. And whether MDA can intentionally withhold vital evidence they have in their possession that would change the outcome of the CAFC decision, such as the H: harddrive containing dates, times, and people for numerous instances of disparate treatment, discrimination and retaliation, the EEO records of the discriminators and the EEO records of the discriminating organization, and The FBI investigation that cleared Mr. Adams of any wrongdoing.”
  3. “Whether CAFC can deny an Oral Argument Request for a case of this magnitude and have justice prevail. And whether Mr. Adams’ Sixth Amendment Rights were violated when CAFC disregarded/ignored his request for an oral argument, in effect, denying him of his right to be heard, and denying him of his right to face his accuser.”

In the other petitions, Adams submitted similar questions.

Briefs in Opposition

Three briefs in opposition were submitted to the Court in two patent cases.

In Tehrani v. Hamilton Technologies LLC, Hamilton Technologies filed its brief in opposition to the petition, which presented the following questions for review:

  1. “Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred by declaring a non-expert as a POSITA despite all the evidence presented to the contrary.”
  2. “Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred by relying on unsupported statements against the Petitioner in the face of reliable published evidence to the contrary.”
  3. “Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred by affirming the decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating the challenged claims of US Patent 7,802,571 while none of the requirements of those claims were met by any combinations of the alleged prior art.”
  4. “Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred by using a) a paper presenting untrue results and b) a fatal device against the challenged claims of US Patent 7,802,571.”
  5. “Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘Federal Circuit’) erred by affirming the decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,802,571 while none of the requirements of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) were met by either of the alleged grounds, and against the Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Precedents of the Federal Circuit.”

In its brief in opposition, Hamilton Technologies asserts Tehrani “has not identified a legal error, but rather is seeking to reargue established facts that have been fully evaluated.” According to Hamilton Technologies, “the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board and the Federal Circuit cited substantial evidence in support of all factual findings and applied established legal principles to those factual findings.” Hamilton Technologies argues Tehrani’s petition “rais[es] unfounded accusations against both the Board and the Federal Circuit over alleged improper factual determinations.”

In VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., two briefs in opposition to the petition were filed. The petition presented the following questions:

  1. “Whether the Federal Circuit erred in upholding joinder of a party under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), where the joined party did not ‘properly file[ ] a petition’ for inter partes review within the statutory time limit.”
  2. “Whether the Commissioner’s exercise of the Director’s review authority pursuant to an internal agency delegation violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.”

First, the government filed its brief in opposition. In response to the petition’s first question, the government asserts that “a determination that Apple should not have been joined would have no effect on the proper disposition of this case.” In response to the petition’s second question, the government contends the Federal Circuit’s holding does not conflict with any decision of the Supreme Court or another court of appeals. According to the government, moreover, the Supreme Court “recently denied petitions for writs of certiorari in two other cases that presented the same question,” and, thus, “[t]he same course is warranted in this case.”

Second, Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.; Apple Inc.; and Black Swamp IP, LLC filed their own brief in opposition. In response to the first question in the petition, similar to the government, they argue “the result” from the Federal Circuit “would not change even if” the Supreme Court “adopted VirnetX’s proposed statutory interpretation.” According to these entities, “the Federal Circuit did not reach the interpretation question; it instead found, as a factual matter, that VirnetX was not prejudiced by Apple’s joinder.” In response to the second question in the petition, these entities assert “VirnetX relies principally on an argument it never raised below and has therefore forfeited.” Thus, according to these entities, “VirnetX identifies no question requiring” the Supreme Court’s intervention.