Comments on: Petitions to Watch: Sept. 24 “Long” Conference

By: Roger Friedman

Roger Friedman — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:55:32 +0000

If we’re just looking for cases with which to bash the Federal Circuit, here’s one coming down the line: 07-308, US v. Clintwood Elkton Mining. It should be ready for conference in October.

By: Roger Friedman

Roger Friedman — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:39:16 +0000

Maybe any petition filed by Kirkland & Ellis relating to a Federal Circuit patent law ruling is potentially cert-worthy, but I just can’t see it for Tyco Healthcare v. Medrad, 06-1328. As I read the petition this is what happened: (1) Medrad filed for a reissue patent correcting 1 overclaim and 2 underclaim errors; however the accompanying declaration required for reissue addressed only 1 of the underclaims. (2) Tyco claimed that the reissue was invalid for the failures of the declaration, and seemingly prevailed on that claim. (3) Medrad filed for another reissue patent supported by a declaration addressing all 3 misclaims, which was granted. (4) Tyco now claims that there is no difference between the first and second reissue claims, therefore the second reissue claim does not faill within the reissue statute. But if the first reissue application was ineffective with respect to or because of the claims not supported by the declaration, how can the second reissue application not be addressing new claims? I mean, patent law is supposed to be arcane, but does it have to defy logic as well?

By: Rick Hasen

Rick Hasen — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:21:10 +0000

Tom has not included the cert petitions in the Indiana voter identification case, 07-21 and 07-25. In a Washington Post oped yesterday, I argue for the Court to take the case, given a troubling partisan divide among lower court judges over how to balance concerns about voter fraud with concerns about voter disenfranchisement. I think that if the Justices actually read Judge Posner's opinion for the 7th Circuit, some of them could well become interested in hearing the case.