|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-1330||Fed. Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 16|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Issue: (1) Whether inter partes review violates Article III of the Constitution; and (2) whether IPR violates the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 18 2016||Application (15A872) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016, submitted to Justice Kennedy (The Chief Justice is recused).|
|Feb 24 2016||Application (15A872) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until March 31, 2016.|
|Mar 16 2016||Application (15A872) to extend further the time from March 31, 2016 to April 29, 2016, submitted to Justice Kennedy (The Chief Justice is recused).|
|Mar 21 2016||Application (15A872) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until April 29, 2016.|
|Apr 29 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 31, 2016)|
|May 6 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.|
|May 25 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 30, 2016, for all respondents.|
|May 27 2016||Brief amici curiae of 13 Law Professors filed.|
|May 31 2016||Brief amici curiae of Interdigital, Inc. and Tessera Technologies, Inc. filed.|
|May 31 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Houston Inventors Association filed.|
|May 31 2016||Brief amicus curiae of University of New Mexico filed.|
|May 31 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEE-USA) filed.|
|May 31 2016||Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|May 31 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Security People, Inc. filed.|
|May 31 2016||Brief amici curiae of Gary Lauder, et al. filed.|
|Jun 30 2016||Brief of respondent Hewlett-Packard Company in opposition filed.|
|Jun 30 2016||Brief of Federal Respondent in opposition filed.|
|Jul 20 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.|
|Jul 20 2016||Reply of petitioner MCM Portfolio LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 3 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 7, 2016.|
|Oct 11 2016||Petition DENIED.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.
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.