No. 20-1654

Sonos, Inc. v. Implicit, LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2021-05-26
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedRelisted (2)
Tags: administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause article-ii constitutional-law inferior-officers principal-officers separation-of-powers united-states
Key Terms:
Patent
Latest Conference: 2021-10-15 (distributed 2 times)
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 FOR REVIEW Whether administrative patent judges are “principal” or “inferior” Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause.

Docket Entries

2021-10-18
Petition DENIED.
2021-09-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.
2021-09-10
Response from respondents Implicit, LLC, et al. filed.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
2021-08-11
Response Requested. (Due September 10, 2021)
2021-07-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-05-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 25, 2021)
PetitionAppendixCertificate of Word CountProof of Service

Attorneys

Drew Hirshfeld, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Implicit, LLC, et al.
John Derek McCorquindale — Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Respondent
John Derek McCorquindale — Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Respondent
Sonos, Inc.
Cole Bradley Richter — Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP, Petitioner
Cole Bradley Richter — Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP, Petitioner