FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this week, on October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the long-running software copyright case. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this extended oral argument took place over the phone and lasted for over 90 minutes. The Court worked to great lengths to untangle the attorneys’ many vital arguments that have developed over the past decade. As we previewed the day before the argument, the issues, in this case, are the availability of copyright protection for software interfaces, in particular Oracle’s Java SE declarations, and Google’s copying of such code that it contends is fair use.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Mantissa Corp. v. Ondot Systems, Inc., (2) Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and (3) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.
• Three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Actavis in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., the second by CBS in Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., and the third by Biomarin in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied a total of 19 different petitions this week.

Here are the details.

On October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from the attorneys for two leading technology giants in the long-running software copyright case, Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. At issue is the availability of copyright protection for software interfaces, in particular Oracle’s Java SE declarations, and Google’s copying of such code that it contends is fair use.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions this week in Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. v. Bedgear, LLC and Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
• One reply brief was filed with the Court by B.E. Technology in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
• One amicus brief was filed with the Court in Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. by Lambeth Magnetic Structures.
• Finally, three waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court in (1) Robles v. Wilkie, (2) Golden v. United States, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week in (1) Cochlear Corporation v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, (2) Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., and (3) Acer America Corporation v. Intellisoft, Ltd.
• Two briefs in response to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Rovi in Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and the second by Facebook in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
• One reply brief was filed with the Court by Phazzer in Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.
• Lastly, two waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court in Drevaleva v. United States and Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received four new petitions this week in (1) RPM International Inc. v. Stuart, (2) Whitserve LLC v. Donuts Inc., (3) Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, and (4) Robles v. Wilkie.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week in (1) Vilox Technologies, LLC v. Iancu, (2) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and (3) Drevaleva v. United States.
• One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court by Taser in Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.
• One new reply brief was filed with the Court by Sanofi-Aventis in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Lastly, one waiver of right to respond to the petition in Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. was filed with the Court by Dish Network.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., (2) ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.
• Nine briefs were filed in response to the petition in United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC.
• Three replies were submitted to the Court, the first by BioDelivery in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., the second by Chamberlain in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., and the third by Campbell in Campbell v. United States.
• One supplemental brief was filed by Ameranth in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
• Lastly, nine waivers of right to respond were submitted to the Court in three cases: (1) United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC, (2) Sanders v. United States, and (3) Michelson v. Department of the Army.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions this week in Michelson v. Department of the Army and Sanders v. United States.
• Mylan submitted its brief in opposition to the Court in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc..
• Finally, one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court in Martin v. Department of Homeland Security by the Department of Homeland Security.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions for writs of certiorari in (1) ThermoLife International LLC v. Iancu, (2) SRAM, LLC v. FOX Factory, Inc., and (3) Halim v. United States.
• Aquesitive submitted a brief in opposition to the petition in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
• Two replies were submitted to the Court, the first by Smith & Nephew in Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. and the second by TCL in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.