Cert Denied; and What is left?

Supreme Court today denied certiorari in two patent cases:

  • Fast 101 Pty. Ltd. v. Citigroup Inc., No. 20-1517 (patent eligibility)
  • Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corporation, No. 20-1220 (Arthrex related, but the SCT petitioner is the patent challenger party who initiated the IPR in the first place).

The court has not yet granted certiorari for any patent cases for next term. There are a few interesting ones pending that should get an up/down vote (or CVSG) in the next couple of weeks:

  • Patent Eligibility: NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group, LLC, No. 20-1412;
  • Obviousness: Amarin Pharma, Inc., et al. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., No. 20-1119;
  • Attorney Fees: Roadie, Inc. v. Baggage Airline Guest Services, Inc., No. 20-1420;
  • Civil Procedure: Rick C. Sasso v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., No. 20-1452; Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., et al. v. Rick C. Sasso, No. 20-1284.

There is also a pair of cases pending certiorari involving Obamacare reimbursement that could be big $$$$.  United States v. Maine Community Health Options, No. 20-1432; Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative v. United States, No. 20-1200; United States v. Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, No. 20-1536.

= = = = =

I should mention that we are still awaiting two merits decisions that should be released by the end of June 2021.

  • Arthrex (proper appointment of PTAB judges)
  • Minerva (assignor estoppel)

– DC

18 thoughts on “Cert Denied; and What is left?

  1. 2

    >>Arthrex (proper appointment of PTAB judges)

    I made my predictions. Still like to see others’ predictions.

    1. 2.1

      Others have made their predictions as well.

      Or are you looking for predictions from someone in particular?

      (and of course, the better part of any prediction would be the underlying reasoning and the accord of that reasoning to specific law and authority)

      1. 2.1.1

        anon, when will you learn that the Scotus does not adhere to any law or document. They decide the outcome and then fabricate a reason for it.

        1. 2.1.1.1

          it’s the best way breh.

          1. 2.1.1.1.1

            “Best”…?

            Best for what?

            Certainly not how this country was designed.

            1. 2.1.1.1.1.1

              “Best for what?”

              Abortin’ babies breh, ensurin’ segregation breh, endin’ segregation breh, gettin’ rights breh, makin’ the “commerce clause” rule everything breh, 1000 banking things breh, gettin’ the gays married breh, etc. etc. etc. Just whatever suits their fancy that day.

              1. 2.1.1.1.1.1.1

                Meh, you can throw out any Ends that you want to 6, but (and especially in law) the Ends just do not justify improper Means.

                That’s a rather important point not just of our government, but of any government.

        2. 2.1.1.2

          Night Writer,

          The take my professional oath seriously.

          That oath makes it clear that all three branches are below the Constitution.

          To your quip of, “when will you learn that the Scotus does not adhere to any law or document.” I thus put back to you, do you take your State attorney oath seriously?

            1. 2.1.1.2.1.1

              Not sure if you posted the correct link there anon, the link you posted just seems to be some random inquiry into supreme court justice trips. Of what interest is that to anyone?

              1. 2.1.1.2.1.1.1

                Yeah – that was the correct link.

                While indeed a tangent, the link was provided to support the notion that even the Supreme Court Justices are not ‘free’ to do whatever they want, and you have Congress critters wanting to nose around because those “Supremes” lack transparency and may be (gasp) corrupt.

                … which supports my bottom line of those of us being attorneys taking our oath of office seriously – and just what that oath says (in view of the Supremes NOT being above the Constitution, like Night Writer sometimes seems to want to pretend)

                1. I hear what you’re talking about, but that seems like something likely to be small taters even if the investigation digs up quite a bit. Won’t make much of a splash I doubt.

                2. yes, I agree that it likely won’t amount to a hill of beans – but it does serve notice that NO branch of the US government is (or should be) above the law.

                  Attorneys (especially) should be ever mindful of that – most all of us have State oaths that require such of us.

          1. 2.1.1.2.2

            Shush anon.

            Learn that a legal discussion has multiple parts. One part is what the court is likely to do and the reasoning they will use.

            Another discussion is whether what they did is actually reasonable or an actual application of the law or a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

            1. 2.1.1.2.2.1

              LOL – you telling me to shush, when I am the one stressing the better parts of those “a legal discussion has multiple parts

              Do you think before you try to shush like that?

      2. 2.1.2

        Moreover, if you are implying that I did not give a legal analysis as part of my prediction, then you’d be wrong.

        1. 2.1.2.1

          Not what I am implying.

          I am stating though that the better thing than merely having a prediction is to have (and see and discuss) the legal rationale OF the prediction.

          I have been quite clear on this point.

  2. 1

    sux breh

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture