Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Baxter Corporation Englewood v. Becton, Dickinson and Company

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2020-1937 · judgment May 28, 2021


Certiorari denied · April 25, 2022
Pre-decision estimate: 8% cert probability (95% interval 5%–12%)

Before the decision, about 1.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and a Federal Circuit decision below, and down for a business respondent.

Questions presented

A petitioner may challenge an issued patent in an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an agency tribunal, but “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). The Federal Circuit reviews the Board’s decisions under the standards set out in the Administrative Procedure Act. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether the Federal Circuit’s practice of allowing IPR petitioners to rely on evidence other than patents and printed publications, such as expert testimony, to fill in gaps in the prior art violates the plain text of § 311(b).

  2. Whether the Federal Circuit’s practice of resolving contested issues of patentability on appeal from Board decisions—rather than remanding those issues for the agency to decide in the first instance— violates the “ordinary remand rule.”

Counsel of record

For petitioner
William McGinley Jay
Goodwin Procter, LLP

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

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage

Proceedings

  1. Apr 25 2022
    Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
  2. Apr 06 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/22/2022.
  3. Apr 05 2022
    Reply of petitioner Baxter Corporation Englewood filed. (Distributed)
  4. Mar 18 2022
    Brief of respondent Becton, Dickinson and Company in opposition filed.
  5. Feb 17 2022
    Brief amicus curiae of Saurabh Vishnubhakat filed.
  6. Feb 07 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 18, 2022.
  7. Feb 04 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 17, 2022 to March 18, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
  8. Jan 18 2022
    Response Requested. (Due February 17, 2022)
  9. Jan 05 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.
  10. Dec 29 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent Becton, Dickinson and Company to respond filed.
  11. Nov 30 2021
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 3, 2022)