|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-1452||Fed. Cir.||Mar 1, 2021||Jun 21, 2021||5-4||Roberts||OT 2020|
Holding: The unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 21, 2021. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined Parts I and II of the opinion, and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined Part III of the opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined as to Parts I and II.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 29 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 3, 2020)|
|Jul 20 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. VIDED|
|Jul 20 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Arthrex, Inc. VIDED|
|Jul 20 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, United States VIDED|
|Jul 22 2020||Memorandum of respondent United States filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 24 2020||Response to petition from respondent Arthrex, Inc. filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 03 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC filed.|
|Aug 12 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.|
|Aug 14 2020||Reply of petitioners Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 05 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.|
|Oct 13 2020||Petition GRANTED, the petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-1434 is granted as to Federal Circuit case No. 2018-2140, and the petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-1458 is granted, all limited to Questions 1 and 2 as set forth in the July 22, 2020 Memorandum for the United States. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Oct 13 2020||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-1434. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-1434. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Dec 31 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 1, 2021. VIDED.|
|Jan 14 2021||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 25 2021||Record requested from the U.S.C.A.Federal Circuit.|
|Feb 24 2021||The record from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Mar 01 2021||Argued. For United States: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al.: Mark A. Perry, Washington, D. C. For Arthrex, Inc.: Jeffrey A. Lamken, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Jun 21 2021||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II. VIDED.|
|Jul 23 2021||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
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
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.