|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-1538||Fed. Cir.||Dec 6, 2016||Feb 22, 2017||7-0||Sotomayor||OT 2016|
Holding: The supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to liability under Section 271(f)(1) of the Patent Act, which prohibits the supply from the United States of "all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention" for combination abroad.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on February 22, 2017. Justices Thomas and Alito joined as to all but Part II-C. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Chief Justice Roberts took no part in the decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 16 2015||Application (14A1075) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 27, 2015 to June 26, 2015, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Apr 22 2015||Application (14A1075) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 26, 2015.|
|Jun 26 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 29, 2015)|
|Jul 13 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners.|
|Jul 17 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 26, 2015.|
|Jul 28 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Agilent Technologies, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 29 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Timothy R. Holbrook filed.|
|Aug 26 2015||Brief of respondent Promega Corporation in opposition filed.|
|Sep 8 2015||Reply of petitioners Life Technologies Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.|
|Oct 5 2015||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 11 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|May 27 2016||Supplemental brief of petitioners Life Technologies Corporation, et al. filed.|
|May 31 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 16, 2016.|
|May 31 2016||Supplemental brief of respondent Promega Corporation filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 20 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 23, 2016.|
|Jun 27 2016||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 2 presented by the petition.|
|Jul 26 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 1, 2016.|
|Jul 26 2016||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 24, 2016.|
|Aug 4 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for Life Technologies Corporation, Invitrogen IP Holdings, Inc., and Applied Biosystems, LLC.|
|Sep 1 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Sep 1 2016||Brief of petitioners Life Technologies Corporation, et al. filed.|
|Sep 7 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 7 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Agilent Technologies, Inc. filed.|
|Sep 8 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Sep 8 2016||Brief amici curiae of Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V., et al. filed.|
|Sep 8 2016||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 8 2016||Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property Professors filed.|
|Oct 21 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, December 6, 2016.|
|Oct 24 2016||Brief of respondent Promega Corporation filed.|
|Oct 25 2016||Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 26 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Oct 31 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 1 2016||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit.|
|Nov 4 2016||Record received from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. Also received are Confidential documents that are also electronic.|
|Nov 7 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General out of time for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Nov 10 2016||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Western Dist. of Wisconsin is electronic.|
|Nov 22 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. out of time|
|Nov 22 2016||Reply of petitioners Life Technologies Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 6 2016||Argued. For petitioners: Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D. C.; and Zachary D. Tripp, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 4 2017||Letter from Clerk of Court to counsel of record noting that the Chief Justice will not continue to participate in this case.|
|Feb 22 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined as to all but Part II-C. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined. Roberts, C. J., took no part in the decision of the case.|
|Mar 27 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
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:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.