|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-1102||Fed. Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2017|
Issues: (1) Whether the court's decisions in Graham v. John Deere Co. and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. require a court to hold patents obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103 where the patents make at most trivial advances over technologies well-known to a person of skill in the art; (2) whether the court's decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. requires application of the four-factor test for injunctions in accordance with traditional equitable principles, and therefore requires more than merely “some connection” between an infringing feature and asserted irreparable harm to support issuance of an injunction for patent infringement; and (3) whether the court's decision in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. requires evidence that an accused product meets all elements of the relevant claim to support entry of a judgment of patent infringement. CVSG: 10/04/2017
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 17 2017||Application (16A823) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 26, 2017 to March 29, 2017, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Feb 21 2017||Application (16A823) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until March 29, 2017.|
|Mar 10 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 10, 2017)|
|Mar 30 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 22, 2017.|
|Apr 10 2017||Brief amici curiae of Public Knowledge, et al. filed.|
|Apr 10 2017||Brief amici curiae of The Hispanic Leadership Fund, et al. filed.|
|Apr 10 2017||Brief amici curiae of The Software & Information Industry Association, et al. filed.|
|Apr 10 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Professors filed.|
|May 22 2017||Brief of respondent Apple Inc. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 05 2017||Reply of petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., et al. filed.|
|Jun 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.|
|Jun 26 2017||The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Oct 04 2017||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Oct 17 2017||Supplemental brief of petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. filed.|
|Oct 18 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017.|
|Nov 06 2017||Petition DENIED.|
In clash between private property rights and pro-union interests, the Supreme Court invalidates a California regulation that requires agricultural employers to allow union organizers onto their property to speak with workers. SCOTUS says the regulation violates the 5th Amendment.
BREAKING: In major First Amendment case on student speech, the Supreme Court rules 8-1 in favor of a former high school student who was disciplined by her public school after sending a vulgar message on Snapchat complaining about the school's cheerleading squad.
In the second Supreme Court opinion of the day, the court holds that the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (which regulates Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) is unconstitutional because of the limits on the president's ability to remove the agency's director.
The Supreme Court issues its opinion in the "hot pursuit" case -- a case about when police can follow a fleeing suspect into a home without a warrant. In an opinion by Kagan, the court declines to adopt a bright-line rule on "hot pursuits" of people suspected of misdemeanors.
The Supreme Court will release one or more opinions at 10:00 a.m. Join us on the live blog beginning at 9:45. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-june-23/
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.
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.
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.