Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2018-1232, 2018-1233 · judgment August 16, 2019

Certiorari denied · June 22, 2020
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

In 2006, the Patent Office issued petitioner’s patent under a statutory scheme that guaranteed that an issued patent is presumed valid in adversarial proceedings until a challenger proves that it is invalid by clear and convincing evidence. Years later, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) eliminated that guarantee by creating, for the first time, an adversarial proceeding that allows a challenger to obtain revocation of a patent by merely a preponderance of the evidence: inter partes review. Unlike any previous administrative process for reexamining a patent, inter partes review requires full participation by the challenger and operates as an adjudication on the relative strength of the parties’ disputed arguments. The AIA expressly subjected patents that issued before its enactment to that new regime. Does the application of inter partes review to a patent that issued before the enactment of the AIA violate the Due Process Clause because it retroactively diminishes vested rights by lowering the burden of proof required to revoke a patent in an adversarial proceeding?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Justin Patrick Daniel Wilcox
Desmarais LLP

For respondent
Thomas Glenn Saunders
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Jun 22 2020
    Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
  2. Jun 15 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/18/2020.
  3. Jun 09 2020
    Rescheduled.
  4. May 26 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.
  5. May 20 2020
    Reply of petitioner Enzo Life Sciences, Inc filed. (Distributed)
  6. May 08 2020
    Brief of Federal Respondent in opposition filed.
  7. May 06 2020
    Brief of respondent Becton, Dickinson And Company in opposition filed.
  8. Apr 30 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 8, 2020.
  9. Apr 29 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 6, 2020 to May 8, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  10. Mar 26 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 6, 2020, for all respondents.
  11. Mar 25 2020
    Motion of the Solicitor General to extend the time to file a response from April 6, 2020 to May 6, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  12. Mar 19 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 6, 2020.
  13. Mar 18 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 6, 2020 to May 6, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  14. Mar 03 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 6, 2020)