FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a taking case asking questions concerning choice of law, the government submitted a waiver of right to respond in a Tucker Act case, and respondents filed response briefs in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update four new pro se petitions were filed and the government submitted a waiver of right to respond in another pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Last week the Supreme Court completed its October 2020 term, with all cases from the term decided. As for the Court’s October 2021 term, currently the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. That said, many petitions are still pending. And, you may recall, the Court previously requested the views of the Solicitor General in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a patent case presenting questions related to eligibility. We are still waiting for the government’s brief in that case. And since our last update, one new petition was filed in a patent case, two respondents submitted waivers of right to respond in a patent case and a pro se case, and a petitioner filed a reply brief in a vaccine case. Here are the details.

This past Tuesday, June 29, the Supreme Court decided Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. In a five to four opinion, the Court upheld the doctrine of assignor estoppel but found that the Federal Circuit “failed to recognize the doctrine’s proper limits.” Justice Kagan authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kavanaugh, and Sotomayor. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Barrett, who was joined by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas. Here is our summary of the Court’s opinions.

This week and last the Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc. and Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., two patent cases appealed from the Federal Circuit. Here is a report on recent articles and blog posts related to these cases.

USPTO Provides Guidance on Director Review Process Under Arthrex – On IPWatchDog, Eileen McDermott and Steve Brachmann write about how after the Arthrex decision the Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would implement the Supreme Court’s remedy using an interim rule that gives the Acting Director the authority to consider requests for reconsideration of final decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

What Will Arthrex Review Look Like? – Bradley Roush and George E. Quillin posted an article on the National Law Review raising questions many are having about how the Patent and Trademark Office will implement the new Director-led review process.

Justices Uphold a Narrow Version of Patent Assignor Estoppel – On SCOTUSBlog, Eric M. Fraser discusses how the Supreme Court reached its decision in Minerva narrowing the doctrine of assignor estoppel.

Professor Kagan v. Professor Barrett, Round 1 of N – On the Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman posts about how in the Minerva case “two former professors were on opposite sides of the docket.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for granted cases, this week the Court decided Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., in which the Court overturned the Federal Circuit’s approach to the assignor estoppel doctrine. Additionally, three cases were granted, vacated, and remanded based on the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. regarding application of the Appointments Clause to administrative patent judges. As for petition cases:

Here are the details.

• a reply brief was submitted in support of a petition in a government contract case;
• the government filed a waiver of right to respond in a patent case;
• the Court dismissed one petition; and
• the Court denied five petitions, including four regarding application of the Appointments Clause to administrative patent judges.

This morning the Supreme Court issued its decision in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a patent case reviewing the Federal Circuit’s approach to the doctrine of assignor estoppel. In a 5-4 split decision, the Court vacated and remanded the Federal Circuit’s judgment. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit “was right to uphold” the doctrine but “failed to recognize the doctrine’s proper limits.” Here is a brief summary of the Court’s holding with quotations from Justice Kagan’s opinion as well as from dissenting opinions authored by Justices Alito and Barrett.

This past Monday, June 21, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., and Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. By a vote of five to four, the Court concluded that the statutory authority conferred upon the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to issue final decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch in inter partes review proceedings violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause because the PTAB’s Administrative Patent Judges are not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Given this violation, the Court voted seven to two to sever the unconstitutional portion of the patent statute, giving the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the power to review the PTAB’s decisions. Here is a summary of the Court’s opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The last week has been a busy one. As for granted cases, this week the Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc., agreeing with the Federal Circuit that the America Invents Act created an Appointments Clause violation with respect to the appointment and supervision of Administrative Patent Judges in inter partes review proceedings. As for petition cases:

• three new petitions were filed in patent law, Tucker Act, and pro se cases;
• two respondents filed briefs in opposition in vaccine and government contract cases;
• a respondent filed a brief in support of a petition in a patent case;
• a reply brief was submitted in supported of a petition in a patent case;
• the government filed waivers of right to respond in a tax case and a pro se case;
• a petitioner in a patent case filed a motion to dismiss; and
• the Court dismissed thirteen petitions.

Here are the details.

This morning the Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Circuit that the statutory authority given to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board violates the Appointments Clause. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Federal Circuit as to the appropriate remedy given this violation. According to the Supreme Court, both the constitutional violation and the appropriate remedy relate to the lack of statutory authority for the Director of the USPTO, a principal officer of the United States nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, to decide whether to grant rehearing with respect to the underlying inter partes review proceeding. Here is a brief summary of the Court’s holding in United States v. Arthrex, Inc.; Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.; and Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., along with language from the Court’s controlling opinion.