| 23-135 |
Intel Corporation, et al. v. Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2023-08-15 |
Denied |
Amici (3) |
administrative-procedure-act agency-rulemaking inter-partes-review judicial-review patent patent-and-trademark-office patent-review statutory-interpretation |
Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), which bars judicial review of "[t]he determination ... whether to institute an inter partes review," applies even when no … |
| 23-63 |
San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union |
Ninth Circuit |
2023-07-24 |
Denied |
|
15-usc-1119 cardinal-chemical circuit-split invalidity jurisdiction non-infringement patent-and-trademark-office summary-judgment trademark-cancellation trademark-disputes trademark-law |
Question 1:
In trademark disputes, the alleged infringing party often seeks declarations that the mark of the opposing party (i) is not infringed and … |
| 22-925 |
Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, fka Unified Patents, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2023-03-22 |
Denied |
Response WaivedRelisted (2) |
acting-official acting-officials agency-delegation federal-vacancies-reform-act inter-partes-review patent-and-trademark-office patent-trial-and-appeal-board presidentially-appointed-senate-confirmed succession-plan |
The question presented is the same as that in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Arthrocare Corp; and United States of America, No. 22-639 (filed J… |
| 22-639 |
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2023-01-10 |
Denied |
Amici (3) |
acting-official agency-delegation director-review-authority federal-vacancies-reform-act inter-partes-review patent-and-trademark-office standing succession-plan |
Whether the Commissioner for Patents' exercise of
the Director's authority pursuant to an internal agency
delegation violated the Federal Vacancies Re… |
| 20-1285 |
Immunex Corporation v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-03-16 |
Denied |
|
35-usc-318 administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause inferior-officers patent-and-trademark-office principal-officers |
The first two questions presented here are the same as those presented in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 19-1458; Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. … |
| 20-679 |
Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-11-17 |
Denied |
Relisted (2) |
appointments-clause inferior-officers inter-partes-review patent-and-trademark-office principal-officers standing |
1. Whether, for purposes of the Appointments
Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, administrative
patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Of… |
| 19-1434 |
United States v. Arthrex, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-06-29 |
Judgment Issued |
Amici (2)Relisted (2) |
administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause constitutional-law inferior-officer inferior-officers patent patent-and-trademark-office principal-officer principal-officers standing uspto |
1. Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Of… |
| 19-8844 |
Louis A. Piccone v. United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2020-06-26 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
bar-disciplinary-proceedings brady-v-maryland delegated-authority due-process federal-regulations government-investigation material-exculpatory-information patent patent-and-trademark-office professional-conduct |
I. Are Attorneys undergoing bar disciplinary
proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office to determine whether they may continue to
prac… |
| 18-1285 |
Gilbert P. Hyatt, et al. v. Andrei Iancu, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2019-04-10 |
Denied |
Amici (2) |
administrative-law mandamus manual-of-patent-examining-procedure patent-act patent-and-trademark-office patent-appeal patent-appeal-rights patent-appeals patent-examination patent-examiner patent-office patent-office-procedure patent-prosecution statutory-interpretation steinmetz-v-allen |
Whether MPEP § 1207.04 violates patent applicants' statutory right of appeal following a second rejection |