Everything Was 'Excellent' In Supreme Court Patent Case
It's rare for the justices to compliment the lawyers before them for the quality of their briefs, but check out the arguments this week in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals. Will the court write an "excellent" opinion?
December 07, 2018 at 12:53 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Patent disputes are not the easiest cases for non-IP lawyers and the public to get their heads around, and most U.S. Supreme Court justices don't count themselves as IP experts. They are generalists.
So they depend on clear and understandable briefing by the parties. They apparently got all that and more from Goodwin Procter partner William Jay and Kannon Shanmugam of Williams & Connolly in the case Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals.
It is rare for justices to compliment the lawyers before them for the quality of their briefs, but Justice Stephen Breyer did just that during oral argument in the case Dec. 4.
Breyer was exasperated he could not come up with a good analogy that would help him understand the contested wording of the America Invents Act and would clarify what happens when an inventor puts an invention on sale or makes it “otherwise available to the public” before seeking a patent.
The meaning of the word “otherwise” was the main focus of the hour-long argument.
“It's possible among these excellent briefs—I thought the bar really earned its pay on both sides—but, I mean … I couldn't come up with a good English example there. So I thought maybe—maybe you have,” Breyer said to Jay, who argued for Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.
Jay began his answer, then paused to say, “Thank you, your honor.”
Justice Elena Kagan soon joined the praise-fest. She asked Jay about “Mr. Shanmugam's excellent brief.” (Here's a link to it.) Jay rose to the occasion, referencing “both of his excellent briefs.”
In his rebuttal, Shanmugam returned the favor, mentioning Jay's “excellent brief.” (You can read it here.) Breyer later chimed in again that “everybody's is excellent.”
All this effusiveness may have been too much for Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who had the last word as the argument ended: “Thank you, counsel. The case is submitted. I am sure we'll come up with an excellent opinion.”
Here's the transcript in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals:
|[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
|
Read more:
This content has been archived.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 AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending 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