No. 21-118

Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2021-07-28
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (5)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-law agency-rulemaking federal-circuit inter-partes-review judicial-review leahy-smith-america-invents-act mandamus-petition patent patent-review uspto
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Patent Trademark JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-01-14 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may review, by appeal or mandamus, a decision of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office denying a petition for inter partes review of a patent

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may review, by appeal or mandamus, a decision of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office denying a petition for inter partes review of a patent, where review is sought on the grounds that the denial rested on an agency rule that exceeds the PTO’s authority under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, is arbitrary or capricious, or was adopted without required notice-and-comment rulemaking. @

Docket Entries

2022-01-18
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.
2021-12-28
Reply of petitioner Apple Inc. filed. (Distributed)
2021-12-24
Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition under Rule 15.5 filed.
2021-12-23
Brief of respondents Private Respondents in opposition filed.
2021-12-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response DENIED.
2021-12-16
Reply of Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, et al. in support of request for an extension of time filed.
2021-12-16
Response to motion to extend the time to file a response from petitioner Apple Inc. filed.
2021-12-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 23, 2021 to January 24, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-23
Response Requested. (Due December 23, 2021)
2021-11-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/3/2021.
2021-11-15
Reply of petitioner Apple Inc. filed. (Distributed)
2021-10-27
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2021-09-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 27, 2021, for all respondents.
2021-09-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 27, 2021 to October 27, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-08-27
Brief amicus curiae of Roku, Inc. filed.
2021-08-27
Brief amicus curiae of ACT | The App Association filed.
2021-08-27
Brief amici curiae of Leading Innovators filed.
2021-08-27
Brief amicus curiae of Computer and Communications Industry Association filed.
2021-08-25
Brief amicus curiae of Jeremy C. Doerre in support of neither party filed.
2021-08-25
Waiver of right of respondent Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, et al. to respond filed.
2021-08-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 27, 2021, for all respondents.
2021-08-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 27, 2021 to September 27, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-07-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 27, 2021)

Attorneys

ACT | The App Association
Brian Eugene Scarpelli — Amicus
Brian Eugene Scarpelli — Amicus
Apple Inc.
Catherine Mary Agnes CarrollWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Petitioner
Catherine Mary Agnes CarrollWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Petitioner
Computer and Communications Industry Association
Joshua Stephen LandauComputer and Communications Industry Association, Amicus
Joshua Stephen LandauComputer and Communications Industry Association, Amicus
Jeremy C. Doerre
Jeremy Cooper DoerreTillman Wright, PLLC, Amicus
Jeremy Cooper DoerreTillman Wright, PLLC, Amicus
Leading Innovators
Mark Simon DaviesOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Amicus
Mark Simon DaviesOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Amicus
Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, et al.
William McGinley JayGoodwin Procter, LLP, Respondent
William McGinley JayGoodwin Procter, LLP, Respondent
H. Annita ZhongIrell & Manella LLP, Respondent
H. Annita ZhongIrell & Manella LLP, Respondent
Roku, Inc.
Adam G. UnikowskyJenner & Block LLP, Amicus
Adam G. UnikowskyJenner & Block LLP, Amicus
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent