throbber
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`_______________
`
`No. 20-74
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER
`
`v.
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, ET AL.
`_______________
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`_______________
`
`MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL
`OF THE CONSOLIDATED PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
`IN IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`NOS. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, and 2019-1485
`_______________
`Pursuant to Rule 46.2(a) of the Rules this Court, the Acting
`
`Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, respectfully
`moves to dismiss in part the government’s consolidated petition
`for a writ of certiorari only as to the judgment of the court of
`appeals in Image Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Nos. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, and 2019-1485. The
`government does not move to dismiss the petition for a writ of
`certiorari with respect to any of the other judgments of the court
`of appeals that are encompassed by the consolidated petition filed
`under Rule 12.4; the government respectfully submits that the
`petition should be held with respect to all of those other
`judgments. The government filed the consolidated petition for a
`
`

`

`2
`writ of certiorari on July 23, 2020, and the petition is currently
`pending before the Court. No fees are currently due the Clerk.
`Petitioner has assumed the costs with respect to the court of
`appeals’ judgment in Image Processing Technologies LLC, supra. No
`party to that judgment opposes this motion.
`
`1.
`These cases concern whether, under the Appointments
`Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, administrative patent
`judges of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with
`the advice and consent of the Senate, or “inferior Officers” whose
`appointment Congress may vest in a department head. In Arthrex,
`Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (2019), petitions for
`cert. pending, Nos. 19-1434 (filed June 25, 2020), 19-1452 (filed
`June 29, 2020), and 19-1458 (filed June 30, 2020), the Federal
`Circuit held that administrative patent judges are principal
`officers and that the statutorily prescribed method of appointing
`administrative patent judges -- by the Secretary of Commerce acting
`alone, see 35 U.S.C. 6(a) -- violates the Appointments Clause.
`941 F.3d at 1327-1335.
`
`In each of the judgments encompassed by the government’s
`consolidated petition in this case, the court of appeals vacated
`one or more decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board)
`based on Arthrex and remanded for further proceedings. On July
`23, the government filed a consolidated petition under Rule 12.4
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`requesting that the Court hold the consolidated petition pending
`this Court’s disposition of the government’s petition for a writ
`of certiorari in Arthrex, and any further proceedings in this
`Court, and then dispose of the government’s consolidated petition
`as appropriate.
`2.
`Since the filing of the government’s consolidated
`petition, the private parties to one of the Federal Circuit’s
`judgments encompassed by the consolidated petition -- Image
`Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Nos. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, and 2019-1485 -- have settled their
`patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings
`before the Board (on remand from the court of appeals) concerning
`the validity of the relevant patent claims. The Board has granted
`that request and terminated the post-remand administrative
`proceedings. In light of that termination, the government no
`longer seeks review of the court of appeals’ order vacating the
`Board’s prior decisions in those particular proceedings. The
`government accordingly requests that the consolidated petition be
`dismissed in part, solely with respect to the court of appeals’
`judgment in Nos. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, and 2019-1485.
`
`The government’s consolidated petition for a writ of
`certiorari in this case also seeks review of 38 additional orders
`of the Federal Circuit. See Pet. 11-19, 23-26; Pet. App. 3a-84a.
`The government does not move to dismiss the consolidated petition
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`as to the court of appeals’ judgments in any of those other cases.
`The government continues to request that the Court hold the
`consolidated petition as to all of those other cases pending the
`disposition of the government’s petition in Arthrex, No. 19-1434,
`and any further proceedings in this Court, and then dispose of the
`consolidated petition as appropriate.*
`
`Respectfully submitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`SEPTEMBER 2020
`
`JEFFREY B. WALL
` Acting Solicitor General
`
`
`*
`Because the particular judgment of the court of appeals
`as to which the government seeks partial dismissal happens to be
`the case listed in the short caption of the government’s
`consolidated petition, it may be appropriate to revise the case’s
`short caption to refer to one of the other 38 judgments of the
`court of appeals encompassed by the consolidated petition. For
`example, the next case listed in the consolidated petition
`(corresponding to the Federal Circuit’s judgment in No. 2019-2315,
`Pet. App. 3a-4a) is captioned: Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of
`Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office v. Eugene H. Luoma, et al.
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket