|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-720||9th Cir.||Mar 31, 2015||Jun 22, 2015||6-3||Kagan||OT 2014|
Holding: The Court declined to overrule its 1964 decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co., holding that a patent holder cannot charge royalties for the use of his invention after its patent term has expired.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 22, 2015. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 23 2013||Application (13A304) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 14, 2013 to December 13, 2013, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Sep 27 2013||Application (13A304) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until December 13, 2013.|
|Dec 13 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 16, 2014)|
|Jan 13 2014||Waiver of right of respondent Marvel Enterprises, Inc. to respond filed.|
|Jan 15 2014||Brief amici curiae of Center for Intellectual Property Research of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, et al. filed.|
|Jan 22 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 21, 2014.|
|Jan 23 2014||Response Requested . (Due February 24, 2014)|
|Feb 12 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 26, 2014.|
|Feb 18 2014||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 27, 2014.|
|Feb 24 2014||Brief amici curiae of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, et al. filed.|
|Feb 24 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago filed.|
|Mar 12 2014||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including April 23, 2014.|
|Apr 23 2014||Brief of respondent Marvel Enterprises, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|May 12 2014||Reply of petitioners Stephen Kimble, et al. filed.|
|May 13 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 29, 2014.|
|Jun 2 2014||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Oct 30 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Nov 18 2014||Supplemental brief of petitioners Stephen Kimble, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 19 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2014.|
|Dec 8 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2014.|
|Dec 12 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 20 2015||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 28, 2015.|
|Jan 26 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jan 28 2015||Brief of petitioners Stephen Kimble, et al. filed.|
|Feb 2 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 31, 2015|
|Feb 3 2015||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Feb 3 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Association of the Bar of the City of New York in support of neither party filed.|
|Feb 3 2015||Record from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Feb 4 2015||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Feb 4 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A. and Canada), Inc. in support of neither party filed.|
|Feb 4 2015||Brief amicus curiae of University of Massachusetts Biologic Laboratories filed.|
|Feb 4 2015||Brief amicus curiae of BioTime, Inc. filed.|
|Feb 4 2015||Brief amici curiae of Professor Robin Feldman, et al. in support of neither party filed.|
|Feb 4 2015||Brief amici curiae of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago in support of neither party filed.|
|Feb 4 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association filed.|
|Feb 4 2015||Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association ("NYIPLA") filed.|
|Feb 4 2015||Brief amici curiae of Center for Intellectual Property Research of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, et al. filed.|
|Feb 4 2015||Brief amici curiae of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, et al. filed.|
|Feb 12 2015||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 27 2015||Brief of respondent Marvel Enterprises, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 4 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Nautilus, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 4 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Public Knowledge filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 6 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Mar 6 2015||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 6 2015||Proposal to lodge copies of two letters from counsel for petitioners.|
|Mar 6 2015||Brief amicus curiae of William Mitchell College of Law Intellectual Property Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 6 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 9 2015||Letter from counsel for respondent opposing petitioner's lodging proposal.|
|Mar 20 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Mar 24 2015||Reply of petitioners Stephen Kimble, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 31 2015||Argued. For petitioners: Roman Melnik, Los Angeles, Cal. For respondent: Thomas G. Saunders, Washington, D. C.; and Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jun 22 2015||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined.|
|Jul 24 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.