No. 20-1617
Matthew Earley v. Drew Hirshfeld, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office
Response Waived
Tags: administrative-law civil-rights due-process equal-protection standing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Patent
Patent
Latest Conference:
2021-06-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
No question identified. : / I. Question to the Court Can the “burden of proof” regarding inherency shift if the Court (US Court of Appeals / Federal Circuit) and Board (US Patent Trial and Appeal Board) have not determined or demonstrated that the prior art reference and the claimed invention are identical or substantially identical as is required in MPEP 2112 and MPEP 2125? , ; Application 12/925,235 Case # 2020-1816 2
Docket Entries
2021-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2021-05-25
Waiver of right of respondent Hirshfeld, Drew to respond filed.
2021-05-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 18, 2021)
Attorneys
Hirshfeld, Drew
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Matthew Earley
Matthew Earley — Petitioner