The Supreme Court announced on Monday, January 8, 2024, it has denied certiorari petitions in three patent cases that we have been watching. This leaves the Federal Circuit rulings intact. It also means that the court is unlikely to hear a patent case this term.
The first case is Intel Corp. v. Vidal, which challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s “Fintiv rule.” This policy allows the PTAB to use the director’s delegated discretion to deny inter partes review petitions if, for instance, parallel litigation in district court is progressing quickly. Intel argued the rule is arbitrary, overly restrictive, and skirted proper rulemaking procedures. But the Federal Circuit said decisions on whether to institute reviews cannot be appealed. Although the Supreme Court has declined to take-up the issue, Dir. Vidal has already narrowed the approach taken under Dir. Iancu and will potentially go further.
The second case, Realtime Data v. Fortinet, involved eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Realtime alleged the Federal Circuit had expanded eligibility exceptions too broadly and asked SCOTUS to reinforce that most inventions should qualify as patentable. However, the Court turned down Realtime’s appeal.
Finally, Traxcell Techs v. AT&T raised a narrow question on whether attorney’s fees can be awarded for “baseless” litigation actions taken after a magistrate judge’s recommendation but before final confirmation by the district judge. Here too though, the Supreme Court denied cert, leaving the Federal Circuit’s answer that “yes, fees were appropriate.” (paraphrasing).
With these three denials on widely-varying patent issues, the Court seems inclined to let CAFC precedent control in these areas for now.
There are still two pending petitions, with VirnetX having a much greater shot than Tehrani.
- VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., No. 23-315. The VirnetX petition focuses on the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the inter partes review (“IPR”) joinder provisions and the requirements of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (“FVRA”). Both Cato and BIO filed briefs in support of the petition.
- Tehrani v. Hamilton Technologies LLC, No. 23-575. The petition raises issues of obviousness, expert qualifications, claim interpretation, etc. I wrote previously that although the issues are super interesting, “the petition largely re-argues the evidence — typically a losing approach at the Supreme Court” petition stage.
In Re: politics on this site
Self-government ain’t easy or automatic. It takes work, which sometimes means engaging with people – wherever they may be found- in proportion to the seriousness of issues.
The war in Gaza is very serious.
Certainly very serious – and that only makes the utter vacuum of views that so gladly provide their Sprint Left narratives even more pronounced.
What combination of pills are you taking these days, Billy? You might want to dial it down a tad.
Ah yes, Malcolm – that same old tired projection gambit from you.
A – ccuse
O – thers
O – f
T – hat
W – hich
M – alcom
I – s
Please Pardon Potential re(P)eat … filter…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 10, 2024 at 7:12 pm
By the way, it IS noticed that you have not shared your position on the matter yet.
Run (away) along now – as usual.
marty – note how UNserious the likes of Malcolm (and the other Sprint Left folk – with possible exception of Greg who did at one time provide a hidden link that MAY indicate his views) have been.
Not a one has spoken up.
Not a one.
Lot’s of inane push back to me for calling them out, but D E A D silence on the actual issue.
And that does not stop them from STILL supplying political comments, both by way of hidden links as well as more directly (even as BobM is only stirred to comment for my posts).
The silence though screams volumes, as the absence is – in itself – a revelation of hypocrisy.
“Realtime … asked SCOTUS to reinforce that most inventions should qualify as patentable.”
This is the kind of deep thinking you’d expect from a ten year old weaponized with (LOL) “artificial” intelligence. So shocked the Supremes gave a hard pass to this one.
As opposed to ‘your kind’ of deep thinking?
Speaking of deep thinking, have you figured out yet what your Sprint Left narrative is on the Israel/Hamas situation, or are you going to – yet again – sprint away with no answer?
Why don’t you start the conversation, Billy, by explaining to everyone, without ambiguity, your deeply serious and thoughtful views on the situation.
LOL
That would truly make the situation sui generis
That is not an answer Malcolm (as easily predicted).
And I have already started – and such does not need your denigrating “without ambiguity,” as none of my statements have been ambiguous at all.
Instead of “LOL’ing,” why don’t you step up (Latin from a commentator who has averred that he can not read either of our posts can be omitted).
oops – that was from marty, not Greg.
As b a d – but just from a different vector.
[sprays anti-Billy disinfectant]
Good luck with that.
Hint at an actual matter is the only “anti” needed for Malcolm spiel.
Based, gotta make room on the ol docket for trump cases to be reversed and remanded.
Are you seeing the cascading ethical issues for the Georgia prosecutor, 6?
The Sprint Left are having conniptions.
Fani’s bf’s time bills show that he was at the White House twice in 2022. Once right after Trump announced. I am sure it is just a coincidence.
Pretty sure that the current administration’s repeated (and vociferous) calls to “save democracy” is the use of the word “democracy” along the lines of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
I keep coming there thinking there will be arguments about Alice, but what I get is political. Please keep the politics off of here.
You need to address MANY other people there BobM.
I would gladly join a politics-free zone, but I will not unilaterally avoid posts of a political nature.
You want a discussion only regarding Alice?
Regardless, why did you not reply to “6” directly for first mentioning Trump in this thread? Instead, you replied to Anon after Anon’s reply to me. Seems a bit biased.
Bruh alice was correctly decided, not sure what args you’d be expecting. I would strongly encourage you to not expect something that practically cannot be a thing.
6 – read Alice again.
Claims – uncontested BY BOTH SIDES ** – were explicitly held to be “abstract” (without actually defining the term).
Those claims were explicitly to thing that not only “can be,” but ARE.
** And do you get the nuance of something not at issue before the Court?
“we’ve gotta save democracy by preventing people from being on the ballot hur dur”
Dennis Crouch’s favorite MAGAt drooling over his bib again.
MM declares that he is legally incompetent and doesn’t get the whole “innocent until proven guilty thing”
Right. Because the Constitution says my right to be on a Presidential ballot can only be taken away if I’m convicted of murder, not “merely because I was arrested because I was videotaped killing somebody after I was videotaped promising to do just that. Sure. That makes sense.
Two problems:
1) The categories “innocent” and “guilty” belong to criminal law. Trump was never facing criminal liability in the Colorado court system, so the maxim “innocent until proven guilty” just does not apply to the Colorado case.
2) What is “until proven” supposed to mean here? It has been proven. There was a trial in the Colorado courts. The secretary of state presented her evidence; Trump presented his evidence; a neutral arbiter weighed and sifted the evidence. In the end—based on the evidence presented—the courts of Colorado found as a fact that Trump had engaged in disqualifying conduct under the terms of Amendment XIV(3). The trial has already happened and the verdict is final. It is a bit late to be speaking of “until proven.”
“t has been proven. There was a trial in the Colorado courts. The secretary of state presented her evidence; Trump presented his evidence; a neutral arbiter weighed and sifted the evidence.
Really? this was an actual trial on sedition?
Yeah, no.
“Sure. That makes sense.”
It does.
Are you really an attorney? It’s utter nonsense like this that gives pause.
Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 Co. 63 (2023) (en banc)
“the district court conducted a five-day trial.”
Does not show any of the charged was actually involved, does it?
“Because the Constitution says my right to be on a Presidential ballot can only be taken away if I’m convicted of murder”
MM literally believes that literal innocent men can have their rights taken away. This is literally what is going wrong with society today.
“Literally innocent” people have ALWAYS been forced to give up rights —even fundamental rights! — for engaging in behavior far less destructive than your cult leader’s behavior and WITHOUT any finding of guilt. Let’s see if either of you possess the intelligence to process this fact and the integrity to admit that it’s an integral part of our justice system.
Hahahaha. Nobody will be holding their breath.
” always been forced to give up rights… the integrity to admit that it’s an integral part of our justice system.”
How much crack HAVE you smoked today?
SJM,
The phrase Federal Preemption (actual finding of sedition or inciting sedition) comes to mind.
CO was nothing more than a Banana Republic end-around, and will most definitely be overturned by the US Supreme Court.
Please Pardon Potential re(P)eat – extra heavy filter today…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 11, 2024 at 10:03 am
SJM,
The phrase Federal Preemption (actual finding of sed1t10n or 1nciting sed1t10n) comes to mind.
CO was nothing more than a B@nana Republic end-around, and will most definitely be overturned by the US Supreme Court.
Instead of – you know – actually addressing the point directly presented by 6, Malcolm chooses N A K E D (and misaimed, in his typical one-bucket approach) ad hominem.
I am shocked. Shocked, I say.
And BobM appears to be perfectly fine with this – given that the only time EVER that he has spoken up is in reply to my posts.
Oh PM, he is most definitely biased. Or perhaps he is simply way too emotionally distraught to signal out Greg’s rampant political signaling.
Or maybe he thinks that type of political propaganda is fine.
Here is another one for St. John and TP. This is an opinion piece from WaPo, not exactly a Trump-supporting outlet.
“You don’t get to kick a guy off the ballot because you think has committed a crime but can’t prove it. If that’s going to be the new standard going forward, we should expect state Supreme Courts in red states to kick President Biden off the ballot because the payments from foreign businessmen to members of Biden’s family stink worse than the swamp water that apparently all of our national monuments are built upon.”
link to washingtonpost.com
Trump is entitled to the same due process as everyone else. He is not getting it here.
This is for St. John and TP:
“In an old case right after the Civil War, Chief Justice Salmon Chase examines the Fourteenth Amendment, and delved into due process. Justice Chase reasoned: “It is undoubted that those provisions of the constitution which deny to the legislature power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … are inconsistent in their spirit and general purpose with a provision which … without trial, deprives a whole class of persons of offices.”
Chase laments that Section 3 does not provide adequate due process, and it is for Congress to determine what that due process ought to look like. Michigan’s Supreme Court found Justice Chase’s holding compelling and ultimately ruled that Congress should be responsible for the process entirely.”
Trump was denied due process in Colorado. Contrary to what you have been told, Trump is entitled to due process, just like everyone else. Colorado violated his due process rights.
link to tennessean.com
The first had an eight hour billing – pretty certain that in itself is unethical, as there is NO WAY that person had a full eight hours on the listed task.
Well, he did also bill 24 hours in one day for a litigation, so he is either superhuman, or a padder.
This goes well beyond mere “padding.”
Where was the oversight and review of these bills?
I am guessing Fani reviewed them. A win win.
PM,
I would presume so as well, as she is responsible for any of her “underlings.”
This is just a HUGE mess of corruption – and NOT the thing to have happen in a case on corruption.
“Are you seeing the cascading ethical issues for the Georgia prosecutor, 6?”
I have to be honest, I can’t even begin to touch that nonsense. Something does seem to have gone down down there, but I’m not sure what exactly did. Rico’ing it seems ridiculous however. It’s similar to the Rico’ing of attorneys during the patent troll goings ons 6 or so years back. I mean yes, it’s fun, but it’s realistically unlikely to have actually had a RICO like real situation actually have taken place.
No one needs to approach RICO for those cascading ethical issues to blossom into something (rightfully) unpleasant for those involved.
6,
Did you see the post on the meaning of “based” on a newer thread?
“Vidal has already narrowed the approach taken under Dir. Iancu and will potentially go further.”
You know, because Vidal really, really, really supports protecting innovation by putting a stop to parallel and serial attacks on the very patents her expert Examiners issued.
You know, the very expert Examiners who she really, really, really supports.
Really.
Your “tongue-in-cheek” tone reminded me of a particular person’s penchant for insisting that patents – as determined by the US Supreme Court – to be “Public Franchises” are still to be considered a form of personal property – but never ventures into the responsibilities that should ensue from a FranchisOR to a FranchisEE.
Think: guarantee of product’s legal correctness.
Think: expectation costs IF that product’s legal correctness is later determined – through NO Fault of the patent holder – to not be valid.
Think: indemnification costs and defense of that product when that product’s legal correctness is challenged.
Are you finally acknowledging the reality that the presumption of validity is a mere construct? That fighting for something does not mean that it has value?
What in the world are you on about, my merely litigator friend?
Nothing in my post touches upon the presumption of validity (either its presence or its degree).
What in the world do you mean by “mere construct?”
As for value, would you then dismiss out of hand the i4i case?
Looking forward to seeing what you may have intended with your ‘jumping in’ here.
I see that the cat has his proverbial tongue (yet again).
Delish.
Totally off-topic, but I’m curious.
In last week’s Purecircle opinion, why did Judge Dyk put the cite in footnote 4 as a footnote rather than in the body of the opinion?
link to cafc.uscourts.gov
Also, what’s with the broken-off ending of the decisional text after this PURECIRCLE v. SWEEGEN holding? And note the somewhat unusual two footnotes quoting oral admissions against interest in response to CAFC questioning of the oral arguing attorney.
[A 112 [enablement] + 101 [unpatentable subject matter] double-whammy of an insufficiently ingenious genus claim?]
Obviously Judge Dyk is setting a trap for a future plagiarism offense. 😉
Comments are closed.