Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Chestnut Hill Sound Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2018-1163 · judgment July 31, 2019
Before the decision, about 1.8× 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.
Questions presented
In an appeal from an inter partes review decision of unpatentability, a losing Patent Owner-Appellant is more than three times as likely to receive a oneword summary affirmation than a losing PetitionerAppellant. The Federal Circuit issues these one-word summary affirmations under Federal Circuit Rule 36. This Court has already requested briefing on a related question regarding Federal Circuit Rule 36(e) in Straight Path IP Group, LLC v. Apple Inc., et al., Sup. Ct. No 19-253. The Questions Presented below address disparities of outcomes for Patent Owners versus Petitioners, but they may be considered companion issues.
-
Can a court ever choose to write reasoned opinions for one class of losing appellants and not another under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; and if so, how disparate can the issuance rates of reasoned opinions, versus summary affirmations, be for different classes of appellants?
-
Is the Public entitled to reasoned opinions when the absence of those opinions diminishes the Public’s right of access to the courts and ultimately results in the erosion of the Rule of Law?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Alexis Faye Mosser
Glast, Phillips & Murray, P.C.
For respondent
John Andrew Dragseth
Fish and Richardson P.C.
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Jan 13 2020Petition DENIED.
- Dec 04 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
- Dec 02 2019Waiver of right of respondent Andrei Iancu to respond filed.
- Nov 21 2019Waiver of right of respondent Apple Inc. to respond filed.
- Oct 29 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 6, 2019)