Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corporation, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2309, 2016-2310, 2016-2311 · judgment January 11, 2018


Certiorari denied · October 29, 2018
Pre-decision estimate: 5% cert probability (95% interval 3%–8%)

Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and a Federal Circuit decision below, and down for a business respondent.

Question presented

Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that where a necessary party to a lawsuit has not been joined, “the court must order that the person be made a party.” The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled below that involuntary joinder under Rule 19 simply does not apply to patent cases due to a “substantive right” that a co-owner of a patent can impede the right of another co-owner from suing infringers in a patent infringement lawsuit. The majority opinion continues a long trend in which the Federal Circuit ignores Supreme Court precedent, as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that these laws and precedents somehow do not apply to patent law. The question presented is: Did the Federal Circuit properly create an exception to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in patent law, requiring a dismissal of a case in which Rule 19 would otherwise mandate joinder of an absent patent owner as an involuntary plaintiff?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Robert William Morris
Eckert Seamans Cherin and Mellott, LLC

For respondent
Heidi Lyn Keefe
Cooley, LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage

Proceedings

  1. Oct 29 2018
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Oct 03 2018
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.
  3. Sep 26 2018
    Reply of petitioner Advanced Video Technologies LLC filed.
  4. Sep 17 2018
    Brief of respondents HTC Corporation, et al. in opposition filed.
  5. Aug 16 2018
    Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Eric Maidla filed.
  6. Aug 06 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 17, 2018
  7. Aug 02 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 16, 2018 to September 17, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
  8. Jul 12 2018
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 16, 2018)