FedCircuitBlog

On April 21, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. As we highlighted in our argument preview, the question presented to the Court was “whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.” In other words, the parties argued for and against the doctrine of assignor estoppel. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

Three new petitions were filed in Dupuch-Carron v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Optimum Services, Inc. v. Secretary of the Interior, and Sasso v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. A new reply was filed in Sandoz Inc. v. Immunex Corp. and Merit Medical Systems, Inc. v. Khan.

Here are the details.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., the case that is predicted to determine the fate of the assignor estoppel doctrine. Specifically, the question presented to the Court is: “whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.” This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new response briefs were filed with the Court in the following cases: Merit Medical Systems, Inc. v. Khan, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, and Sandoz Inc. v. Immunex Corp.
• Two new response briefs were filed with the Court in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC and Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc.
• The Court received one new waiver of right to respond from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in Blanton v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court rendered its decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the long-running software copyright case.
• Three amicus briefs were filed in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a case that has been granted certiorari.
• The Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court in response to the petition in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC.
• One new reply brief was filed with the Court in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited.
• One new amicus brief was filed with the Court in Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative v. United States by Anthem, Inc., Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc., Highmark Inc., L.A. Care Health Plan, and Molina Healthcare of California, Inc.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions in three cases.

Here are the details.

On April 5, 2021, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the long-running software copyright case. The Court sided with Google in a 6-2 opinion, holding that Google’s copying of the Java API code constituted fair use. Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion for the Court and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Gorsuch. Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Alito. Justice Barrett did not participate in the case. Here is a summary of the majority and dissenting opinions.

This morning the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s finding of copyright fair use in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. Justice Breyer authored the Court’s majority opinion, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch joined. Justice Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, which Justice Alito joined. Justice Barrett did not participate in the case. Here are the introductions to the majority and dissenting opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received a response brief from Hologic in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a case that has been granted certiorari.
• The Court received two new petitions for writ of certiorari in Sowinski v. California Air Resources Board and Merit Medical Systems, Inc. v. Khan.
• One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court in response to the petition in Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc.
• Five new amicus briefs were filed with Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petition in Simmons v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received four new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new response briefs were filed with the Court. Two in Iancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC and one in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited.
• Two new amicus briefs were filed with the Court in Sellers v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the first by the National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium and the second by the Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc.
• One letter to Justice Barrett was filed with the Court by counsel for Sasso in Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Sasso, notifying Justice Barrett of a potential conflict of interest.
• Two waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions in two cases: (1) Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and (2) Wynkoop v. Department of Defense.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received four new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new amicus brief was filed with the Court in Sandoz Inc. v. Immunex Corp. by The Association for Accessible Medicines and America’s Health Insurance Plans, Inc.
• One new waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in Jones v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Here are the details.