Happy April Fools’ Day!  Yesterday was serious business at the Court, where the Justices granted review in one new case and heard oral arguments in an important patent case.  This blog’s Lyle Denniston covered the certiorari grant in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc., in which the Court will consider the Federal Circuit’s power to review a district court’s ruling on the scope of invention claims in patent disputes, as well as the rest of the Court’s orders; other coverage of the grant in Teva Pharmaceuticals comes from Andrew Pollack of The New York Times and Addison Morris of JURIST.  In another post, Mark Walsh of Education Week’s School Law blog reports on the Court’s denial of review in the challenges by two Catholic non-profits to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, while Cynthia Milley does the same for JURIST.

After issuing orders, the Court heard oral arguments in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, in which the Justices are considering whether the Patent Act authorizes patents on software.  Covering the case for The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that the Justices were “skeptical” of the patent, an assessment shared by Adam Liptak of The New York Times; Daniel Mullin also has coverage for JURIST.  In an op-ed in The New York Times, Robin Feldman argues that “ensuring that software patents meet the same level of rigor as other patents, would be an important contribution to stemming the tide.”

Briefly:

  • At ACSblog, Frederick Gedicks offers his take on last week’s oral arguments in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, concluding that, although it “may be that ‘Justice Kennedy thinks Hobby Lobby is an abortion case,’ . . . it seems just as likely that he will see it as a gay -rights case – and that would be good news for the contraception mandate.”

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 1, 2014, 7:52 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/tuesday-round-up-216/