No. 23-552
Ambassador Animal Hospital, Ltd. v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al.
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: circuit-split fax fcc-regulation hobbs-act junk-fax-prevention-act marketing telephone-consumer-protection-act unsolicited-advertisement
Key Terms:
Trademark Privacy
Trademark Privacy
Latest Conference:
2024-04-12
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the TCPA's definition of 'unsolicited advertisement' permits consideration only of the content on the face of a junk fax or also permits consideration of the purpose and context surrounding the sending of the fax
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
question presented. The following question is presented: (2) Did the Hobbs Act require the district court in this case to accept the FCC’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?
Docket Entries
2024-04-15
Petition DENIED.
2024-03-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2024.
2024-03-15
Reply of petitioner Ambassador Animal Hospital, Ltd. filed.
2024-03-01
Brief of respondents Elanco Animal Health, Inc., et al. in opposition filed.
2024-01-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 1, 2024.
2024-01-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 2, 2024 to March 1, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-01-03
Response Requested. (Due February 2, 2024)
2023-12-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/12/2024.
2023-12-20
Waiver of right of respondent Elanco Animal Health, Inc., et al. to respond filed.
2023-11-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 22, 2023)
Attorneys
Ambassador Animal Hospital, Ltd.
Phillip A. Bock — Bock, Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC, Petitioner
Phillip A. Bock — Bock, Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC, Petitioner
Elanco Animal Health, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company
Kevin Franz King — Covington & Burling LLP, Respondent
Kevin Franz King — Covington & Burling LLP, Respondent