Source: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/03/pending-supreme-patent-march-update.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:50:13+00:00

Document:
Earlier this week, the University of Missouri Law Review held its annual symposium – this year focusing on the Future of the Administrative State. That future is a primary front of challenge in the patent system. Arguments in Cuozzo v. Lee are now scheduled for April 25. Jeffrey Wall of Sullivan & Cromwell (who also argued Stryker/Halo two weeks ago) is representing Cuozzo along with his colleague Garrard Beeney. On that same day, the Supreme Court will also hear the copyright attorney fee case Kirtsaeng.
Following Justice Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court simplified its docket by denying certiorari to a set of patent cases, including: Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew; STC v. Global Traffic Technologies; ePlus v. Lawson Software, Inc.; Media Rights Technologies v. Capitol One; Alexsam v. The Gap; and ULT v. Lighting Ballast Control. Achates v. Apple was dismissed after being settled by the parties.
New petitions include Sandoz v. Amgen (BCPIA’s inherent six-month delay following commercial marketing notice); Hemopet v. Hill’s Pet (eligibility of claim directed to tailoring of a pet’s diet based upon genomic characteristics and expression); GEA Process v. Steuben Foods (after instituting, is the PTAB’s termination reviewable?); ParkerVision v. Qualcomm (when should a court reject a jury’s determination that an expert is credible); and WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical (foreign lost profit damages).
Post Grant Admin: Cooper v. Lee, No. 15-955 (whether IPRs violate Separation of Powers; two amici now filed in support).
Eligibility Challenges: Hemopet v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., No. 15-1062 (natural phenom case of tailoring a diet to a pet’s genomic characteristics).
Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc., v. Lighting Ballast Control LLC, No. 15-893 (intrinsic vs extrinsic evidence for claim construction).
And yet again, the ad hominem that clearly does not square with the plain fact that software provides the very opposite in that it is the single most accessible form of innovation.
But why let that inconvenient truth get in the way of the drive-by monologue propaganda…?
Oops – this was supposed to go to 1.1 below.
I’ve noticed greater numbers of design patent assertions in the last six months, as predicted by the many amici in Apple v. Samsung.
Here is a cute one from this morning. Lots of “ornamental” content in foam blocks used for packaging. Why, people buy them all the time based on their looks. This design is surely not functional! Clearly I just don’t understand optional claim formats or something…..
I’d like to see the Morales v. Square “Low quality brief.” Anyone have a link?
This guy is a pro se desperado. Just from the questions presented you can get a pretty good feel for the lack of understanding.
Whether, The Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves … when extreme facts create a probability of bias, or create a probability of incompetence to rule.
Whether, The patent claim in this case should be used to constrain the freedom of interpretation of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. [v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)], to find a claim to be invalid under §101.
How shocking that a ridiculous petition like this would arise from an incredibly junky “do it on a computer” patent!
communicating the generated signal from the repeater station to a data center for processing.
Ya gotta love that last “limitation” especially.
How many similarly inane patents are floating out there right now? Tens of thousands, at least. And the PTO keeps adding to the pile. But, sure, let’s make it as difficult to possible to get rid of them — because some rich guys made themselves fabulously wealthy that way and they need more money. They’re very serious!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §101