FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in one of the six pending merits cases and also denied or dismissed 21 petitions. In addition, in the past week four new petitions were filed, three in patent cases and one in a government contract case. As well one response in opposition to a petition and two reply briefs in favor of certiorari were filed.

Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest, and—to put it lightly—the government had a tough go. Malcolm Stewart of the Office of the Solicitor General faced a barrage of questions finding fault with the government’s position that patent applicants must pay the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s attorneys’ fees when challenging rejections in federal district court. NantKwest’s Morgan Chu, by contrast, faced many questions seeking to clarify the historical record and NantKwest’s position, but few directly challenging NantKwest’s position on the merits.

Last week we provided a preview of the 27 petitions distributed for the Supreme Court’s October 1 conference in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Here is a report on the order list the Supreme Court issued today as a result of its October 1 conference. In a nutshell, the Court denied or dismissed petitions for certiorari in 21 cases decided by the Federal Circuit, and left six other petitions pending.

When a patent applicant challenges the U.S. Patent and Trademark’s rejection of her patent application, and in particular takes that challenge into federal district court rather than straight to the Federal Circuit—in order, for example, to introduce new evidence and obtain de novo review—must the applicant pay the USPTO’s personnel expenses of the district court proceeding? Indeed, must the applicant pay those expenses, including attorneys’ fees, regardless of whether the applicant wins or loses in court? Those are questions the Supreme Court will consider Monday, when it holds oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., the first of six Federal Circuit cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear during the 2019 Term.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Of the six pending merits cases, there was no new activity. Three new petitions, however, were filed, along with a supplemental brief, two response briefs, and an amicus brief.

This Tuesday the Supreme Court returns from its summer hiatus, holding its first conference of the 2019 Term. Here is a list of the petitions that have been distributed for Tuesday’s conference in cases decided by the Federal Circuit, organized by subject matter, along with some comments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Of the six pending merits cases, there was not much activity, with the exception of one case where multiple amicus briefs were filed. Two new petitions were also filed—one in a patent case, and one in a government contract case—as well as two responses in opposition to petitions and two amicus briefs in favor of petitions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for the six pending merits cases, three were set for oral argument in December, the Solicitor General filed a motion for divided argument in one, and an opening merits brief was filed. Two new petitions and a waiver of the right to respond to a petition were also filed. Read on for the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Several merits and amicus briefs were filed in two cases pending at the Court. In addition, while the Court did not grant or deny any cert petitions, one new cert petition was filed as well as one reply in support of a petition.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court did not grant or deny any cert petitions this past week. There were, however, two new cert petitions filed as well as one substantive response. Read on for the details.