• At Patently-O, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette and Jonathan Masur suggest that Monday’s decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, holding that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention, might inadvertently undermine efforts by the Patent and Trademark Office to improve patent claim clarity.
  • At, Lisa Soronen discusses the amicus brief filed by the State and Local Legal Center in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, in which the Court will consider whether workers must be compensated for time spent in security screenings. 
  • At Forbes, Rich Samp urges the Court to grant review (despite the Solicitor General’s contrary recommendation) in ONEOK, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., in which the Court is being asked to consider whether the Natural Gas Act preempts state-law claims challenging industry practices that directly affect the wholesale natural gas market when those claims are asserted by litigants who purchased gas in retail transactions.
  • Michael Dorf weighs in on the Court’s opinion in Bond v. United States, holding that a Pennsylvania woman cannot be prosecuted in federal court for violations of the federal ban on chemical weapons.  In his column at Verdict, he looks at the broader questions raised by the Court’s opinion, while at Dorf on Law he “address[es] a question of statutory construction that divides CJ Roberts and the majority, on one hand, from Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, on the other.”

A friendly reminder:  We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at]  Thank you!

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 6, 2014, 9:47 AM),