Correct But Unimportant SCOTUS Rulings

Petitions for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court are exceedingly hard to get granted. In the current one year term of the Court, which is nearing its tail end, only 59 cases were reviewed, a record or near record low. Some cases leave you scratching your head about why it chose that case of the more than five thousand cases were relief is sought each year, to decide.

The Patent Act requires that a patent specification be written “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art … to make and use” the invention. On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi that two of Amgen’s patent specifications failed this requirement, and that the corresponding claims were therefore invalid. As I’ve previously explained, I agree that Amgen’s claims are invalid and I’m pleased that Amgen came out the right way.

Amgen is unlikely to go down as a landmark decision in patent law. Indeed, it is not clear why the Supreme Court granted certiorari at all. The district court found that the claims were invalid. The Federal Circuit unanimously agreed that the claims were invalid. The Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General, who agreed with the district court and the Federal Circuit that the claims were invalid and recommended denying certiorari. The Supreme Court granted certiorari anyway and unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit, with reasoning that was essentially identical to the Federal Circuit’s reasoning. The law therefore stands exactly where it stood before Amgen.

From here. 

The author, who clearly has a low opinion of the significance of civil and appellate procedure issues, which were presented in nine out of ten of them, then ranked the ten least significant SCOTUS cases in the last decade:

9 (tied). Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582 (2020) (a bankruptcy court’s denial of a creditor’s motion for relief from the automatic stay is appealable). 

9 (tied). Texas v. New Mexico, 141 S. Ct. 509 (2020) (evaporated water is included in the definition of water lost in reservoir storage in a contract between Texas and New Mexico regarding water rights). 

6 (tied). Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266 (2017) (a notice of appeal does not apply to an order entered after the notice of appeal is filed, in this case, a post-judgment $4,500 restitution award). 

6 (tied). San Antonio v. Hotels.com, 141 S. Ct. 1628 (2021) (the Court of appeals rather than the district court decides if a prevailing defendant is entitled to reimbursement from the plaintiff for appeal bond premiums paid). 

6 (tied). U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, 138 S. Ct. 960 (2018) (a determination that a creditor in a Chapter 11 is a non-statutory insider is reviewed for clear error, not de novo).

5 Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, 137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) (a litigant who claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action" can intervene in a pending case if the would-be intervenor sought relief that differed from the relief sought by the plaintiff, which was a proposition that the parties agreed upon already). 

4 National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 138 S. Ct. 617 (2018) (judicial challenges to the “waters of the United States” rule of the Clean Water Act go directly to the district court first, and then court of appeals, not directly to the court of appeals, because the statute says so).

2 (tied). Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services, 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (a 30 day deadline in a federal appeals court rule to file an extension of time to file a notice of appeal after the deadline has expired was not jurisdictional).

2 (tied). Culbertson v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 517 (2019) (the fee cap on Social Security claim attorney fees applies separately the administrative claim work and court litigation work, not to the combined administrative and court litigation). 

1 Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (2012) (appeals of Merit System Protection Board decisions that include a discrimination component are filed in district court not in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit).