No. 19-1110
Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corporation
Response Waived
Tags: constitutional-challenge due-process federal-court federal-patent-statute federal-statute patent-infringement patent-venue personal-jurisdiction sovereign-immunity sovereign-rights state-rights state-sovereign state-sovereignty
Key Terms:
Patent Privacy Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
Patent Privacy Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-04-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a state's sovereign right to try its causes within its borders when there is personal jurisdiction over the defendant renders unconstitutional a federal patent venue statute applied to force the state sovereign to sue the in-state infringer in a federal court located in another state
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented is: Whether a state’s sovereign right to try its causes within its borders when there is personal jurisdiction over the defendant renders unconstitutional a federal patent venue statute applied to force the state sovereign to sue the in-state infringer in a federal court located in another state.
Docket Entries
2020-04-20
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-26
Waiver of right of respondent Boston Scientific Corporation to respond filed.
2020-03-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 9, 2020)
2020-01-23
Application (19A813) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until March 6, 2020.
2020-01-21
Application (19A813) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 6, 2020 to March 6, 2020, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
Board of Regents, The University of Texas System and Tissuegen, Inc.
Michael W. Shore — Shore Chan Bragalone LLP, Petitioner
Michael W. Shore — Shore Chan Bragalone LLP, Petitioner
Boston Scientific Corporation
Matthew McManus Wolf — Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Respondent
Matthew McManus Wolf — Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Respondent