Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Christy, Inc. v. United States

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2019-1738 · judgment August 24, 2020

Certiorari denied · February 22, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

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

Questions presented

Petitioner Christy, Inc. obtained a patent after following all the steps and rules and paying all of the fees demanded of it. Upon trying to assert its property rights embodied in the patent against an accused infringer, the Government invalidated the patent during Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) initiated by the accused infringer because it had allegedly been mistakenly issued. Christy, Inc. received no compensation for its property nor return of the fees it paid. In that context, the Questions Presented are:

  1. When a duly-issued patent is invalidated through a post-grant review process (such as an IPR), must compensation be paid under the Takings Clause?

  2. When a duly-issued patent is invalidated through a post-grant review process (such as an IPR), should the issuance and maintenance fees that were demanded by the government by mistake be returned?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
James Francis McDonough III
Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC

For respondent
Brian H. Fletcher
Acting Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage

Proceedings

  1. Feb 22 2021
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Feb 17 2021
    Brief amicus curiae of Masimo Corporation filed. (Received Feb. 25, 2021)
  3. Feb 03 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
  4. Feb 02 2021
    Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Christy, Inc.
  5. Jan 29 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
  6. Jan 21 2021
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 25, 2021)