No. 20-1220
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corporation, et al.
Tags: administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause appointments-clause-interpretation constitutional-law inferior-officers judicial-review officer-status principal-officers separation-of-powers
Key Terms:
Securities Patent Trademark
Securities Patent Trademark
Latest Conference:
2021-06-03
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether administrative patent judges are 'principal' or 'inferior' Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether administrative patent judges are “principal” or “inferior” Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause.
Docket Entries
2021-06-07
Petition DENIED.
2021-05-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/3/2021.
2021-05-14
Reply of petitioner Comcast Cable Communications, LLC filed. (Distributed)
2021-05-03
Brief of Federal Respondent in opposition filed.
2021-03-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 3, 2021, for all respondents.
2021-03-17
Motion of the Acting Solicitor General to extend the time to file a response from April 2, 2021 to May 3, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-02-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 2, 2021)
Attorneys
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
Mark Andrew Perry — Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent