|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-927||Fed. Cir.||Nov 1, 2016||Mar 21, 2017||7-1||Alito||OT 2016|
Holding: Laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for damages brought within the six-year limitations period of Section 286 of the Patent Act.
Judgment: Vacated in part and remanded, 7-1, in an opinion by Justice Alito on March 21, 2017. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 18 2015||Application (15A546) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 17, 2015 to January 19, 2016, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Nov 23 2015||Application (15A546) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 19, 2016.|
|Jan 19 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 22, 2016)|
|Jan 29 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners.|
|Feb 11 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 23, 2016.|
|Feb 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Toro Company filed.|
|Feb 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of ART+Com Innovationpool, GmbH filed.|
|Feb 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Medinol Ltd. filed.|
|Mar 22 2016||Brief of respondents First Quality Baby Products, LLC, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Apr 5 2016||Reply of petitioners SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag, et al. filed.|
|Apr 6 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 22, 2016.|
|Apr 25 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 29, 2016.|
|May 2 2016||Petition GRANTED.|
|May 20 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 15, 2016.|
|May 20 2016||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 12, 2016.|
|May 25 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Jul 15 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jul 15 2016||Supplemental joint appendix filed.|
|Jul 15 2016||Brief of petitioners SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag, et al. filed.|
|Jul 20 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Jul 21 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Medinol Ltd. filed.|
|Jul 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of ART+Com Innovationpool, GmbH filed.|
|Jul 22 2016||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Jul 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The American Bar Association filed.|
|Jul 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago in support of neither party filed.|
|Jul 22 2016||Brief amici curiae of Alliance of Inventor Groups filed.|
|Jul 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 2 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT On Tuesday, November 1, 2016|
|Sep 7 2016||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge filed.|
|Sep 9 2016||Record has been requested from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit.|
|Sep 12 2016||Brief of respondents First Quality Baby Products, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 15 2016||Record received from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. Also from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit are Confidential documents filed electroniclly.|
|Sep 19 2016||Brief amici curiae of Briggs & Stratton Corporation, et al. filed.|
|Sep 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Askeladden, LLC filed.|
|Sep 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Cook Medical LLC filed.|
|Sep 19 2016||Brief amici curiae of Dell, et al. filed.|
|Sep 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Sep 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Universal Remote Control, Inc. filed.|
|Sep 19 2016||Brief amici curiae of Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corporation filed.|
|Sep 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. filed.|
|Sep 28 2016||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 12 2016||Reply of petitioners SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 1 2016||Argued. For petitioners: Martin J. Black, Philadelphia, Pa. For respondents: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C.|
|Mar 21 2017||Adjudged to be VACATED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Apr 24 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
We can announce, however, that we'll be liveblogging the release of orders from today's conference AND opinions, starting at around 9:25 @SCOTUSblog. Please join us to discuss the leak, pending opinions, and whatever other SCOTUS-related issues are on your mind. https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1524788054434660353
#SCOTUS will release opinions from argued cases at 10 am on Monday. The Court does not announce in advance how many opinions it will release or which ones.
NEW: Next Monday will be a Supreme Court opinion day. Starting at 10 a.m. EDT, the court expects to issue one or more decisions in argued cases from the current term.
Just in: The Supreme Court denies a request to block the execution of Clarence Dixon, an Arizona man who is scheduled to be put to death today. Dixon's attorneys argued that, because of a mental illness, Dixon is not mentally fit to be executed under the Eighth Amendment.
On this date in “How Appealing” history: At this very moment twenty years ago, this blog came into existence, boosting your humble author from nearly total obscurity to perhaps a modicum less than nearly total obscurity.
On this happy occasion, I once https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2022/05/06/#179553
How the unprecedented Supreme Court leak may have been a response to an earlier disclosure about the justices' private deliberations. @TomGoldsteinSB on what it all means for the court and its secrets.
How the leak might have happened - SCOTUSblog
Among the debates generated by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs is whether the leaker was...
JUST IN: The Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico. The chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak.