Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Audio Evolution Diagnostics, Inc. v. United States, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2023-1096 · judgment May 14, 2024
Before the decision, about 1.6× 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.
Question presented
Applying this Court’s rulings in Alice and Mayo, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims invalidated plaintiff’s patents—not for a business method or computer program—but for a new and useful machine applicable in the telemedicine industry. The Court of Federal Claims invalidated all of Audio Evolution Diagnostics, Inc. (“AED”)’s patent claims as abstract ideas by conflating novelty and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 with patent eligibility under § 101. The government—plaintiff’s opponent here—has urged this Court at least twice to revisit Alice and Mayo to prevent such overreach. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the same way that it has resolved over one-third of all patent appeals that came before it in the last two decades— with one word: “affirmed” and a cite to Federal Circuit Rule 36. The questions presented are: 1. Whether this Court should clarify its Alice and Mayo rulings at steps one and two by focusing on the language of 35 U.S.C. § 101 itself and differentiate patent-eligibility determinations under § 101 from factbased well-understood, routine, and conventional questions of novelty, obviousness, and enablement under §§ 102, 103, and 112.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Peter Joseph Corcoran III
Corcoran IP Law PLLC
For respondent
Brett William Johnson
Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P.
Proceedings
- Jun 06 2025Petition DENIED.
- May 20 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/5/2025.
- May 15 2025Reply of petitioner Audio Evolution Diagnostics, Inc. filed.
- Apr 30 2025Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Mar 26 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 30, 2025, for all respondents.
- Mar 26 2025Waiver of right of respondent Global Media Group LLC to respond filed.
- Mar 24 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 31, 2025 to April 30, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 28 2025Brief amicus curiae of Harris Brumfield, Trustee for Ascent Trust, filed.
- Feb 27 2025Brief amicus curiae of Island Intellectual Property, LLC filed.
- Feb 25 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 31, 2025, for all respondents.
- Feb 24 2025Motion of Global Media Group LLC to extend the time to file a response from February 28, 2025 to March 31, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 06 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 31, 2025.
- Feb 05 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 28, 2025 to March 31, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 27 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 28, 2025)
- Nov 19 2024Application (24A497) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 25, 2025.
- Nov 14 2024Application (24A497) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 26, 2024 to January 25, 2025, submitted to The Chief Justice.