FedSoc Forums

In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP (Supreme Court, April 20, 2020), the Supreme Court held that the Patent Office decision to hear an inter partes review (“IPR”) challenge is not subject to judicial review on time-bar grounds. The majority found that ruling otherwise would “unwind the agency’s merits decision” and “operate to save bad patent claims.”While this case deals largely with an issue of IPR appellate procedure, it should be interesting to a wider audience because it illustrates the Justices' disparate views on a key question: are issued patents property?In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Gorsuch argued that the Constitution does not permit a “politically guided agency” (here the Patent Office) to revoke a property right (like an issued patent) without judicial review. He analogized issued patents to the land patents that the government once granted to “homesteaders who moved west.” He expressed his view that since the Court would not “allow a bureaucracy in Washington to ‘cancel’ a citizen’s right to his farm…” the Court should not allow the Patent Office to cancel an issued patent (especially without judicial review). Justice Gorsuch’s dissent argued against the core principles established in the Supreme Court’s Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U. S. ___ (2018) decision—where he also dissented. In Oil States, the Supreme Court held that patents are not “property rights” in the traditional sense, but rather are “public franchises” granted (and subject to revocation) by the government. Oil States left, for another day, the question of whether compensation is required, and in what circumstances, when the government acts to revoke a previously granted patent.In response to Justice Gorsuch’s dissent, the majority asserted that:The dissent acknowledges that “Congress authorized inter partes review to encourage further scrutiny of already issued patents.” . . . The second look Congress put in place is assigned to the very same bureaucracy that granted the patent in the first place. Why should that bureaucracy be trusted to give an honest count on first view, but a jaundiced one on second look?The majority reached its conclusion – the Patent Office’s decision to hear an IPR challenge is not reviewable on time-bar grounds – in harmony with the expressed purpose of IPR reviews: making it easier to eliminate “bad patents” and to prevent the “wast[e] of resources spent resolving patentability.” Essentially, majority concluded that if the patent owner was able to challenge the PTO’s decision to cancel a patent on the merits – as opposed to on the procedure – she would do so (and such merits based challenges are subject to judicial review).Please join our expert, Daniel L. Geyser, in a discussion of the oral argument. Dan represented Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, in the Supreme Court.Featuring:Mr. Daniel L. Geyser, Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, Geyser, P.C. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The oral argument for this case will be held on May 6, 2020. At issue is whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

On May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an important First Amendment case, USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., Case No. 19-177, regarding the scope of the government’s funding power to limit private speech. This is the second time this case has been argued in the Court. Like the prior appeal, this case addresses whether the government has the power to compel speech from grant recipients who received government funds to combat HIV/AIDS worldwide. This teleforum will provide an overview of the Court’s prior opinion, the First Amendment impact of this case, and several key points that the Court will likely address in its opinion.Featuring: Casey Mattox, Senior Fellow, Free Speech and Toleration, Charles Koch InstituteKrystal B. Swendsboe, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

COVID-19 has disrupted the world like few other events in recent history. The disruptions are sure to lead to disagreements and serious legal disputes. As matters are sorted out in courts across the country, how should and how will science and expert testimony be used? How will the 'battle of experts' be engaged in the courts? Will standards of expertise change in either direction, either in sympathy for people who have suffered, or in anticipation of opportunistic plaintiffs seeking a payout?Featuring:-- Mark A. Behrens, Partner and Co-Chair, Public Policy Group, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP-- Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Almost every religious institution closed its doors in mid-March in response to requests and then order from various levels of government in the name of slowing or stopping the spread of COVID-19. Many religious institutions responded to the shutdowns with ingenuity by finding ways to meet and still remain in compliance with the CDC’s recommendations of physical distancing and limits on meeting sizes. One of those solutions – drive-in services – became the target of growing government restrictions in parts of the country. Matt Martens and Hiram Sasser will discuss what is a drive-in religious service and the constitutionality of prohibiting such services during the current pandemic. Featuring: -- Matthew T. Martens, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP-- Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Today the Supreme Court released the decision in United States v. Sineneng-Smith. By a vote of 9-0, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded. Although every member of the Court joined Justice Ginsburg's opinion, Justice Thomas also issued a concurring opinion indicating his doubt about the validity of the overbreadth doctrine. Join us today as Brian Fish discusses the decision in this case. Featuring: -- Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

The oral argument for this case will be held on May 6, 2020. At issue are: (1) Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court; and (2) whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage.Featuring: -- Mark Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School

In 2017, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced her formal request to open an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber denied the request, but after the prosecutor appealed, on March 5, 2020, the ICC Appeals Chamber authorized her to proceed with the investigation. This means that, in the near future, the ICC could issue warrants seeking the arrest of current and former U.S. officials, government employees, and military personnel—despite the fact that the U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC, has already investigated the alleged crimes, and rejects the ICC’s claims of jurisdiction over U.S. persons and actions. What are the ICC's authorities under international law; is the ICC on solid ground? Will this development lead the U.S. to take new steps to protect Americans? Featuring: -- Brett Schaefer, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation-- Charles "Cully" Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, National Security Law Program, The Heritage Foundation

It has long been a staple of trademark law that one cannot receive a registered trademark for a generic term - for instance a trademark for "socks" would be useless because it indicates the type of goods being sold, not the source of those goods. This doctrine has been generally applied to generic terms with a top level domain appended - so socks.com would be equally generic and not capable of being registered for federal trademark protection. However, this is being challenged by the website booking.com, which offers travel booking services. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected their trademark application for "booking.com," saying it is generic, but the District Court reversed, finding "booking.com" descriptive, not generic, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. This question now finds itself before the Supreme Court, to determine whether a domain name that is a generic term plus a top level domain can be validly registered for trademark protection.Featuring:-- Mr. Arthur Gollwitzer, III, Partner, Michael, Best & Friedrich LLP-- Mr. Zvi S. Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of Law

COVID-19 has changed life as we know it in innumerable ways. But what can we expect from the trial bar and in litigation generally? How will liability issues be sorted during and in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic? Further, who will decide? How can states and enforcement officials, businesses, and the legal community in general prepare for the coming wave of COVID-related litigation? Featuring: Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, State of GeorgiaHarold Kim, President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.