No. 20-92
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corporation, et al.
Relisted (2)
Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause appointments-clause-interpretation constitutional-law inferior-officers officer-status principal-officers separation-of-powers
Key Terms:
Securities Patent Trademark
Securities Patent Trademark
Latest Conference:
2021-06-24
(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 Whether administrative patent judges are “principal” or “inferior” Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause.
Docket Entries
2021-06-28
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.
2020-11-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.
2020-07-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 28, 2020)
Attorneys
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
Mark Andrew Perry — Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Petitioner
Mark Andrew Perry — Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Petitioner
Promptu Systems Corporation, et al.
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent