|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-1128||Fed. Cir.||Nov 5, 2013||Jan 22, 2014||9-0||Breyer||OT 2013|
Holding: When a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee to establish that its products do not infringe the licensed patent, the patentee bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of infringement.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on January 22, 2014.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 14 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 17, 2013)|
|Apr 5 2013||Brief of respondent Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC in opposition filed.|
|Apr 25 2013||Reply of petitioner Medtronic, Inc. filed.|
|Apr 30 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 16, 2013.|
|May 20 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 5 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 26, 2013.|
|Jun 5 2013||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 16, 2013.|
|Jul 26 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jul 26 2013||Brief of petitioner Medtronic, Inc. filed.|
|Aug 2 2013||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Aug 2 2013||Brief amici curiae of Legal Scholars filed.|
|Aug 2 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Tessera Technologies, Inc. in support of neither party filed.|
|Aug 19 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 20 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 5, 2013.|
|Sep 3 2013||Record from U.S.C.A. for Federal Circuit is electronic (Not PACER).|
|Sep 3 2013||Additional record received from U.S.C.A. for Federal. Circuit. (1 box)|
|Sep 11 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Sep 16 2013||Brief of respondent Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 20 2013||Motion of Tessera Technologies, Inc. in support of neither party for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for enlarged argument or, in the alternative divided argument filed.|
|Sep 20 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Koninklijke Philips, N.V. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 30 2013||Joint opposition of the parties to motion of Tessera Technologies, Inc. for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument.|
|Oct 15 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 15 2013||Motion of Tessera Technologies, Inc. in support of neither party for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument DENIED.|
|Oct 16 2013||Reply of petitioner Medtronic, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 5 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C.; and Curtis E. Gannon, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Arthur I. Neustadt, Alexandria, Va.|
|Jan 22 2014||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jan 31 2014||Record for U.S.C.A. for the Federal Circuit has been RETURNED.|
|Feb 24 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Experts continue to analyze last week's Fulton decision. Here are the final pieces in our symposium.
Thomas Berg & Douglas Laycock on the future of free-exercise challenges: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/protecting-free-exercise-under-smith-and-after-smith/
Holly Hollman on the ruling's many unresolved questions: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-requires-religious-exemption-but-leaves-many-questions-unanswered/
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Here’s @AHoweBlogger’s analysis on the Supreme Court’s major NCAA ruling today.
NCAA athletes win 9-0 on educational perks as Kavanaugh calls out ban on direct payments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday reshaped the relationship between universities and the athletes who play college sports. ...
SCOTUSblog is hiring!
We're seeking a new blog manager -- a fun and fast-paced role that includes writing articles, tracking statistics, managing the content on our site, and helping to plan and execute all our news coverage of the court.
SCOTUSblog is hiring a new blog manager - SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog is seeking a new blog manager. We are looking for a smart, creative person who is fascinated by the ...
After the Supreme Court handed down three opinions this morning, 12 cases remain outstanding for this term. They include voting rights, student free speech, and anonymous donors. We expect more opinions on Wednesday, June 23 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
We will open the live blog at 9:45.
The third and final opinion of the day is in U.S. v. Arthrex. In a fragmented decision, the court holds that the appointment of administrative patent judges violated the Constitution’s appointments clause because they are not “inferior” officers. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
NEW: In a victory for college athletes, SCOTUS unanimously invalidates a portion of the NCAA's "amateurism" rules. The court says the NCAA can no longer bar colleges from providing athletes with education-related benefits such as free laptops or paid post-graduate internships.