Skilled in the Art: Supreme Court Calls on the Other SG + Quinn Scores Big Win in Hair Product Battle While Trying to Fend Off DQ Motion in Soccer Case
How often does the Supreme Court issue CVSGs twice in the same case? And does the SG ever change its mind? Twitter is rich with answers.
April 30, 2019 at 09:00 PM
9 minute read
Welcome to Skilled in the Art. I'm Law.com IP reporter Scott Graham. I heard the Supreme Court wanted the SG's views on Oracle and Google's mammoth copyright clash, so I've got 'em below. Oh wait, the Supreme Court wants to hear from the SG, the solicitor general, just as it did the first time around in 2015. It made me wonder: How often do the justices issue CVSGs twice in the same case? And does the SG ever change its mind? Thankfully, Twitter is rich with answers. Meanwhile, Quinn Emanuel pulled off a nifty feat, winning an injunction on a patent that the PTAB thinks is invalid. The firm is also fending off a disqualification motion in a high-profile battle between soccer nonprofits. I've got all the details below. As always you can email me your thoughts and follow me on Twitter.
➤➤ Would you like to receive Skilled in the Art as an email? Sign up here.
Photo illustration by Jason Doiy.Let's Hear From the Solicitor General—Again
In journalism we call it B matter. It's the background to a story that we write in advance of anticipated breaking news.
Ahead of the Supreme Court's April 26 conference, I wrote four separate sets of B matter based on what I saw as the most likely outcomes in Google v. Oracle, the copyright clash of Silicon Valley titans: One for cert denied. One for cert granted on Question 1 (whether copyright protection extends to Oracle's Java APIs). One for cert granted on Question 2 (whether a jury could find Google's copying a fair use). And one for cert granted on both questions.
I was all set. Once the Supreme Court announced its decision Monday morning, I would select the B matter that matched, hit “publish,” and my story would be online in minutes.
But there were two other possibilities. One was the court could have relisted Google's petition for a future conference. No big deal if that happened; I'd still be ready to go next time.
The other possible outcome was CVSG—a Call for the Views of the Solicitor General. Nahhhh, that wasn't gonna happen, right? The Supreme Court already got the SG's views in this case four years ago.
CVSG is what we got. Google and Oracle will once again have to make their pitches to the Justice Department's top Supreme Court litigator.
Matt Schruers of the Computer and Communications Industry Association had the same reaction as me:
It turns out two CVSGs in one case isn't that rare at all:
And as Fish & Richardson partner John Dragseth points out, the court has been requesting the SG's views a lot in IP cases lately.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Skilled in the Art With Scott Graham: I'm So Glad We Had This Time Together
Design Patent Appeal Splinters Federal Circuit Panel + Susman Scores $163M Jury Verdict + Finnegan Protects Under Armour's House
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
