throbber
No. 20-74
`
`In the
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`UNITED STATES,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, ET AL.,
`Respondents.
`
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`MARK A. PERRY
`GIBSON, DUNN &
` CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 955-8500
`MPerry@gibsondunn.com
`
`JESSICA A. HUDAK
`GIBSON, DUNN &
` CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Drive
`Irvine, CA 92612
`
`
`
`
`
`DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR.
`
` Counsel of Record
`GINGER D. ANDERS
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`1155 F Street NW, 7th Fl.
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 220-1100
`donald.verrilli@mto.com
`
`BRIAN J. SPRINGER
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 S. Grand Ave., 50th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Respondent
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`i
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`1. Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause,
`U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, administrative patent judges
`of the United States Patent and Trademark Office are
`principal officers who must be appointed by the Presi-
`dent with the Senate’s advice and consent, or “inferior
`Officers” whose appointment Congress has permissibly
`vested in a department head.
`2. Whether the court of appeals erred by adjudicating
`Appointments Clause challenges brought by litigants
`that had not presented such a challenge to the agency.
`
`
`
`

`

`ii
`
`RULE 29.6 STATEMENT
`Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 29.6, respondent states
`that Comcast Cable Communications, LLC is a wholly
`owned, indirect subsidiary of Comcast Corporation and
`no other publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of
`the stock of respondent.
`
`
`
`

`

`iii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`OPINIONS BELOW ....................................................1
`JURISDICTION...........................................................1
`DISCUSSION ..............................................................2
`CONCLUSION ............................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................... 2, 3, 4
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. 1254(1) ......................................................... 1
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS
`
`General Order, 2020 WL 2119932
`(P.T.A.B. May 1, 2020) ........................................... 2
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The order of the court of appeals in Rovi Guides,
`Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, Nos. 2019-
`1215, 2019-1216, and 2019-1218 (consolidated) and in
`Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`Nos. 2019-1293, 2019-1294, and 2019-1295 (consoli-
`dated) (Pet. App. 62a-63a) is unreported.
`The order of the court of appeals in Promptu Sys.
`Corp. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, Nos. 2019-
`2368 and 2019-2369 (consolidated) (Pet. App. 36a-37a)
`is unreported.
`The order of the court of appeals in Promptu Sys.
`Corp. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, No. 2020-
`1253 (Pet. App. 44a-45a) is unreported.
`JURISDICTION
`The judgments of the court of appeals in Promptu
`Sys. Corp. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, Nos.
`2019-2368 and 2019-2369 (consolidated), and in
`Promptu Sys. Corp. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`No. 2020-1253, were entered on February 27, 2020.
`The judgments of the court of appeals in Rovi
`Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, Nos.
`2019-1215, 2019-1216, and 2019-1218 (consolidated)
`and in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns,
`LLC, Nos. 2019-1293, 2019-1294, and 2019-1295 (con-
`solidated), were entered on April 22, 2020.
`The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on July
`23, 2020, pursuant to this Court’s March 19, 2020 or-
`der extending the time within which to file a petition
`for a writ of certiorari to 150 days after the date of the
`court of appeals’ judgment. The jurisdiction of this
`Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
`
`
`
`

`

`2
`
`DISCUSSION
`In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d
`1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit held that ad-
`ministrative patent judges who sit on the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board (Board) are principal rather than
`inferior Officers of the United States; that severing ad-
`ministrative patent judges’ statutory removal protec-
`tions was sufficient to cure the Appointments Clause
`violation; and that the patent owner was entitled to re-
`adjudication before a reconstituted Board panel de-
`spite not having raised its Appointments Clause chal-
`lenge before the Board. The United States has filed a
`petition for a writ of certiorari in Arthrex, seeking re-
`view of the Federal Circuit’s Appointments Clause and
`remedial rulings. See Pet. for Cert., United States v.
`Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434 (filed June 25, 2020). The
`private parties have filed petitions as well. Pet. for
`Cert., Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-
`1452 (filed June 29, 2020); Pet. for Cert., Arthrex, Inc.
`v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 19-1458 (filed June 30,
`2020).
`Since its decision in Arthrex, the Federal Circuit
`has “vacated more than 100 decisions” by the Board
`and has “instruct[ed] the Board to conduct further pro-
`ceedings on remand before newly-designated Board
`panels.” General Order, 2020 WL 2119932, at *1
`(P.T.A.B. May 1, 2020). Among those more than 100
`decisions are nine decisions in which Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC prevailed before the Board, but
`the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decisions in re-
`liance on Arthrex. Three of the Board decisions con-
`cern a patent owned by Promptu Systems Corp. See
`Pet. App. 36a-37a (Nos. 2019-2368 & 2019-2369 (con-
`solidated)); id. at 44a-45a (No. 2020-1253). Six of the
`decisions concern patents owned by Rovi Guides, Inc.
`See id. at 62a-63a (Nos. 2019-1215, 2019-1216, and
`
`
`

`

`3
`
`2019-1218 (consolidated) and Nos. 2019-1293, 2019-
`1294, and 2019-1295 (consolidated)).
`The United States’ omnibus petition in this case en-
`compasses the Federal Circuit’s judgments in the
`cases involving Comcast and seeks a hold for these and
`other cases pending this Court’s decision on the Ar-
`threx petitions. Pet. 25-26. The Federal Circuit va-
`cated the Board’s final written decisions in these cases
`based on its conclusion in Arthrex that the administra-
`tive patent judges were invalidly appointed. As in Ar-
`threx, the Federal Circuit did so despite the patent
`owners’ failure to raise any Appointments Clause chal-
`lenge to the Board’s constitution before the Board it-
`self. The United States’ omnibus petition therefore
`presents the same questions that are presented in the
`petitions for writs of certiorari filed in Arthrex.
`In addition, Comcast has separately filed a certio-
`rari petition with respect to the Promptu cases, in
`which Comcast also urges this Court to hold the peti-
`tion pending its disposition of Arthrex and then dis-
`pose of it accordingly. Pet. for Cert., Comcast Cable
`Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp., No. 20-92 (filed
`July 24, 2020). Comcast intends to file a certiorari pe-
`tition with respect to the Rovi cases, seeking the same
`relief.
`For the reasons summarized in the United States’
`omnibus petition (at 25-26), Arthrex was wrongly de-
`cided in both its substantive and remedial aspects. See
`also Br. for Amicus Curiae Comcast Cable Communi-
`cations, LLC in Supp. of Pet’rs, Smith & Nephew, Inc.
`v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1452 (filed Aug. 3, 2020). Ac-
`cordingly, Comcast respectfully submits that the
`Court should hold the United States’ petition for a writ
`of certiorari involving the Comcast cases (No. 20-74)
`pending disposition of the Arthrex petitions (Nos. 19-
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`
`1434, 19-1452, and 19-1458) and then dispose of it ac-
`cordingly. Comcast requests the same relief with re-
`spect to its Promptu petition (No. 20-92), and will re-
`quest the same relief in its Rovi petition. In the alter-
`native, the petitions involving the Comcast cases
`should be granted.
`CONCLUSION
`The petition for a writ of certiorari should be held
`pending disposition of the Arthrex petitions (Nos. 19-
`1434, 19-1452, and 19-1458), and any further proceed-
`ings in this Court, and then disposed of as appropriate
`in light of the Court’s decision in that case. In the al-
`ternative, the petitions involving the Comcast cases
`should be granted.
`Respectfully submitted,
`MARK A. PERRY
`GIBSON, DUNN &
` CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 955-8500
`MPerry@gibsondunn.com
`
`JESSICA A. HUDAK
`GIBSON, DUNN &
` CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Drive
`Irvine, CA 92612
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR.
`Counsel of Record
`GINGER D. ANDERS
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON
` LLP
`1155 F Street NW, 7th Floor
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 220-1100
`donald.verrilli@mto.com
`
`BRIAN J. SPRINGER
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON
` LLP
`350 S. Grand Ave., 50th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`
`AUGUST 26, 2020
`
`
`
`

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