FedCircuitBlog

As we previously reported, the Supreme Court in June issued its opinion in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case that attracted eight amicus briefs. In this case, the Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that consist of or comprise a name identifying a particular living individual without that person’s consent violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court decided that history and tradition establish that the provision in question does not violate the First Amendment. Notably, Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett both concurred in part and Justice Sotomayor concurred only in the judgment. This is our opinion summary.

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. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a pro se case, new waivers of the right to respond were filed by the government in one takings case and three pro se cases, and one new reply in support of a petition was filed in a patent case raising a question regarding the relationship between patent term adjustment and obvious-type double patenting. Here are the details.

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. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a pro se case, and two new replies were filed in patent cases raising questions related to notice-and-comment rulemaking and patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the two cases pending at the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit, merits briefs and amicus briefs were filed. With respect to petitions, five new petitions were filed, three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed, two new waivers of the right to respond were filed, and one new amicus brief was filed. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. This week’s highlights include new petitions filed in a patent case raising a question related to standing and a takings case raising a question related to a regulatory takings claim. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. This week’s highlights include new petitions filed in a patent case raising questions related to Rule 36 and a pro se case raising questions related to Whistleblower Protection Act, a new brief in opposition filed in another patent case raising questions related to patent eligibility, and a new waiver of the right to respond in a third patent case raising questions related to prior art that may be asserted in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The only new activity this week was a new brief in opposition filed in 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. A new petition was filed presenting a question about the abstract-idea exception relating to patentability. A new waiver of the right to respond was also filed in 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. There was a new petition filed in a patent case concerning questions about inter partes review, and there was a new amicus brief filed in another patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Most notably, this week the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. In other news, a new petition was filed in a pro se case, a party waived its right to respond in a patent case, six new amicus briefs were filed in another patent case, and a pro se petition was denied. Here are the details.