|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-801||Fed. Cir.||Oct 7, 2019||Dec 11, 2019||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2019|
Holding: The PTO cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel under Section 145 of the Patent Act.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on December 11, 2019.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 04 2018||Application (18A369) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 25, 2018 to November 23, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Oct 05 2018||Application (18A369) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 23, 2018.|
|Nov 13 2018||Application (18A369) to extend further the time from November 23, 2018 to December 21, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Nov 14 2018||Application (18A369) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until December 21, 2018.|
|Dec 21 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 22, 2019)|
|Jan 22 2019||Brief of respondent NantKwest, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|Feb 04 2019||Reply of petitioner Andrei Iancu filed.|
|Feb 06 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.|
|Feb 25 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.|
|Mar 04 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Mar 26 2019||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Apr 03 2019||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits is granted. The time to file joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 17, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 15, 2019.|
|May 08 2019||Letter of substitution of petitioner received.|
|May 17 2019||Brief of petitioner Laura Peter, Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office, filed.|
|May 17 2019||Joint appendix filed.|
|May 23 2019||Brief amicus curiae of R Street Institute filed.|
|May 24 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Federal Circuit Bar Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Jun 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association filed.|
|Jul 01 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, October 7, 2019.|
|Jul 15 2019||Brief of respondent NantKwest, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The American Bar Association filed.|
|Jul 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association filed.|
|Jul 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago filed.|
|Jul 22 2019||Brief amici curiae of The Association of Amicus Counsel, et al. filed.|
|Jul 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The International Trademark Association filed.|
|Jul 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed.|
|Jul 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Association of the Bar of the City of New York filed.|
|Jul 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of IEEE-USA filed.|
|Aug 01 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 14 2019||Reply of petitioner Laura Peter, Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 16 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit.|
|Aug 27 2019||Complete record located on PACER (U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit and U.S.D.C. Eastern Dist, VA).|
|Oct 07 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Mr. Morgan Chu, Los Angeles, Cal.|
|Dec 11 2019||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jan 13 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
In advance of tomorrow's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, we asked experts and advocates on both sides of the abortion debate to weigh in on how the court should approach the case. You can read our full symposium here:
Symposium before oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
Today at SCOTUS: Two oral arguments starting at 10 a.m. EST. One is on federal anti-discrimination laws. The other is on Medicare payments for drugs dispensed by hospitals -- with big questions about the doctrine of Chevron deference lurking in the background.
Bill Cosby’s prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to reinstate his conviction today. Quick explainer.
In our latest episode of SCOTUStalk, @shefalil of @19thnews joined us to preview Wednesday's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. Shefali explains the current state of abortion access and the case's implications in Mississippi and across America.
Roe, Dobbs, and the current state of abortion access - SCOTUSblog
In advance of Wednesday's oral argument in the momentous abortion case, Shefali Luthra, a gender and health care r...
Update: Without calling for a response or referring the case to the full court, Justice Breyer just rejected last week's challenge from Massachusetts hospital workers who object to the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate.
(Breyer handles emergency requests from Massachusetts.)
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket challenge to a COVID vaccine mandate. This one is from employees at Mass General Brigham who say the Boston-based hospital violated federal law by not granting them exemptions from the hospital's vaccine policy. Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/21A175.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral argument in a case about Medicare payments to hospitals that serve low-income patients. Lots of money at stake, plus potential implications for the Chevron doctrine. @JACoganJr explains the case:
Money for safety-net hospitals at stake in dispute over Medicare payment formula - SCOTUSblog
When it comes to highlighting the complexity of the Medicare Act and its hospital payment rules, Becerra v. Empire...