Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd.
||Op. Below ||Argument
Issues: (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 46 and principles of sound judicial administration preclude a court of appeals from adding a new judge to form a new panel and redecide a case after an original three-judge panel has already decided the case and entered its judgment; and (2) whether 35 U.S.C. § 112 should be interpreted consistent with its plain text as requiring that a patent specification contain a “written description of the invention” in a form that need only be understandable to “any person skilled in the art,” or whether the court of appeals properly read in a heightened requirement that allows it to deem the specification inadequate on de novo review and displaces the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)|
|Dec 06 2022||Application (22A507) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 19, 2022 to January 18, 2023, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Dec 08 2022||Application (22A507) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 18, 2023.|
|Jan 18 2023||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 21, 2023)|
|Jan 30 2023||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 21, 2023 to March 3, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Feb 01 2023||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 3, 2023.|
|Feb 21 2023||Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property Professors filed.|
|Feb 21 2023||Brief amici curiae of Retired United States Circuit Judges filed.|
|Feb 21 2023||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors and Civil Procedure Scholars filed.|
|Mar 03 2023||Brief of respondent HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., HEC Pharm USA Inc. in opposition filed.|