|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-1594||Fed. Cir.||Feb 19, 2019||Jun 10, 2019||6-3||Sotomayor||OT 2018|
Holding: The federal government is not a “person” capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 10, 2019. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 16 2018||Application (17A879) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 15, 2018 to May 14, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Feb 28 2018||Application (17A879) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until May 14, 2018.|
|May 14 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 25, 2018)|
|Jun 12 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Return Mail, Inc..|
|Jun 22 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 25, 2018 to July 25, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jun 22 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 25, 2018.|
|Jun 25 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Kenneth O. Simon filed.|
|Jun 25 2018||Brief amici curiae of 15 Law Professors filed.|
|Jul 17 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 25, 2018 to August 24, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 18 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including August 24, 2018.|
|Aug 13 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 24, 2018 to September 7, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Aug 13 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 7, 2018.|
|Sep 07 2018||Brief of respondents United States Postal Service, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Sep 21 2018||Reply of petitioner Return Mail, Inc. filed.|
|Sep 26 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.|
|Oct 22 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.|
|Oct 26 2018||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Nov 26 2018||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Return Mail, Inc.|
|Dec 10 2018||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Dec 10 2018||Brief of petitioner Return Mail, Inc. filed.|
|Dec 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America filed.|
|Dec 17 2018||Brief amici curiae of The Cato Institute and Professor Gregory Dolin filed.|
|Dec 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 17 2018||Brief amici curiae of Seven Law Professors filed.|
|Dec 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Dec 21 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, February 20, 2019.|
|Jan 09 2019||Brief of respondents United States Postal Service, et al. filed.|
|Jan 11 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit.|
|Jan 15 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 15 2019||Brief amicus curiae of R Street Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 15 2019||Record from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is located on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office web site. Instructions to access the record is electronic. The record is complete.|
|Jan 16 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Tejas N. Narechania filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 16 2019||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation.|
|Jan 23 2019||RESCHEDULED FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 19, 2019.|
|Jan 23 2019||Record from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. The record is complete.|
|Feb 08 2019||Reply of petitioner Return Mail, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2019||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation GRANTED.|
|Feb 19 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Beth S. Brinkmann, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 10 2019||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 12 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
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.