No. 21-118
Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, et al.
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
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
Apple Inc.
Computer and Communications Industry Association
Jeremy C. Doerre
Jeremy Cooper Doerre — Tillman Wright, PLLC, Amicus
Jeremy Cooper Doerre — Tillman Wright, PLLC, Amicus
Leading Innovators
Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, et al.
William McGinley Jay — Goodwin Procter, LLP, Respondent
William McGinley Jay — Goodwin Procter, LLP, Respondent
H. Annita Zhong — Irell & Manella LLP, Respondent
H. Annita Zhong — Irell & Manella LLP, Respondent
Roku, Inc.
Adam G. Unikowsky — Jenner & Block LLP, Amicus
Adam G. Unikowsky — Jenner & Block LLP, Amicus
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent