DOCSLIB.ORG

Issues of Patentability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Issues of Patentability DIGITAL HEALTH ISSUES OF PATENTABILITY Recent changes in US patent law have made protecting and enforcing patents directed to digital healthcare inventions more challenging, as Marsha Gillentine and Michelle Holoubek of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explain. igital healthcare, the confluence of amount to “significantly more“ than the abstract medical and other biological fields idea, such that all uses in the abstract idea are not Dwith digital technology, is a vital part of pre-empted. patient treatment and healthcare management. Much of the confusion surrounding software- This article discusses five of the current top based claims is due to the first part of the test, intellectual property concerns for digital since there has been no guidance regarding how healthcare companies. to properly define an abstract idea. The Supreme Court explicitly declined to provide this guidance 1. Will the changes in US software in the Alice decision, and the federal circuit has WH[LU[SH^HќLJ[`V\Y07& not offered clear guidance on this point either. On June 19, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued What does this mean for patent applicants its decision in Alice Corp v CLS Bank, holding and owners? For starters, that a review of that computerised abstract patent ideas are not your existing IP may be needed to make sure patent-eligible. The post-Alice patent world has that no eligibility issues have arisen due to been filled with uncertainty and understandable the current (and retroactive) flux in the law. fears regarding the patent eligibility of software For new IP, additional details about specific patent claims. implementations, advantages that differentiate Digital healthcare companies have not your invention from the state of the art, and been spared this angst, since much of their examples may all be useful in mitigating innovation is protected by software patents eligibility challenges down the road. and patent applications. Even when the underlying innovation is truly new and unique, 2. Do US patent law changes a patent cannot be granted if the invention is not about “naturally occurring” or considered the type that is ‘eligible’ for patenting. “natural phenomenon” subject Whether innovations implemented in software TH[[LYHќLJ[`V\Y07& are ‘eligible’ is currently an open question In addition to considering whether changes in ANDREY BURMAKIN / SHUTTERSTOCK.COM without clear guidance from the US Patent and software patent law affect a digital healthcare Trademark Office (USPTO) or courts. company’s IP, certain digital healthcare The Alice decision, as well as later decisions companies, such as diagnostic companies from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal or pharmaceutical companies developing a Circuit, applies a two-part test for eligibility to companion diagnostic test, must also evaluate software-based claims. In the first part of the test, US patent law changes about naturally occurring a patent claim is analysed to determine whether or natural phenomenon subject matter. it recites an abstract idea. In the second part In 2013, the Supreme Court found in of the test, the claim is analysed to determine Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad whether additional elements in the claim Genetics that claims to an “isolated DNA” are www.lifesciencesipreview.com Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review Conference Special 41 DIGITAL HEALTH not patentable because “a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent-eligible merely because it has been isolated”. Th erefore, claims to a particular gene sequence, unmodifi ed from its natural state, are not patent-eligible. Additionally, the federal circuit in In re BRCA1- and BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation found that a primer pair was patent-ineligible because “[t]hey are structurally identical to the ends of DNA strands found in nature” even though the gene sequences at issue were synthetically replicated. Furthermore, correlations involving a “law of nature” are not patentable subject matter. Th e Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories found that claims directed to correlating blood levels with a dose of the active pharmaceutical ingredient were not patentable subject matter. Th e Supreme Court found that these method claims were not patent-eligible because the relationship between metabolite concentration and optimised dosage was a “law of nature”. Th is decision suggests that claims directed to diagnostic assays may “UNDER THE TWO-PART TEST PROVIDED not constitute patentable subject matter under certain circumstances. BY THE USPTO, A CLAIM IS ELIGIBLE IF THE Although not law, the USPTO’s guidelines are NATURE-BASED PRODUCT LIMITATION EXHIBITS informative about what the USPTO considers ‘MARKEDLY DIFFERENT’ CHARACTERISTICS FROM ITS to be patent-eligible subject matter. Under the two-part test provided by the USPTO, a claim NATURALLY OCCURRING COUNTERPART.” is eligible if the nature-based product limitation exhibits “markedly diff erent” characteristics ANDREY BURMAKIN / SHUTTERSTOCK.COM from its naturally occurring counterpart. For example, an isolated nucleic acid such steps, for example in a label accompanying a employed to ensure that the physician performs comprising a sequence with at least 90% pharmaceutical product. Th erefore, patent owners the treatment step. Th erefore, claims should identity to a naturally found sequence, but may rely on inducement to obtain a fi nding of be draft ed with an eye toward only one party containing at least one non-naturally occurring liability for infringement of a method claim. To performing or directing all the recited steps. genetic substitution, is eligible because the establish inducement, direct infringement by structural differences between the non- another party must be established. 4. Can innovation be kept as a natural variant and the natural counterpart are An example of an invention performed [YHKLZLJYL[& markedly different. by multiple parties would be a patent claim Since fi ling a patent application requires Additionally, an isolated nucleic acid with an comprising a fi rst step to assay for a particular disclosing the “crown jewels” to the public in attached fl uorescent label is eligible because the biomarker (performed by a laboratory) followed exchange for a patent, many digital healthcare molecule has diff erent structural and functional by a second step to administer a particular companies prefer to keep their proprietary characteristics than the naturally occurring therapeutic dose based on the result of the algorithms secret. nucleic acid. biomarker assay (performed by a physician). A trade secret is something that is not Digital healthcare companies with inventions The Supreme Court in Limelight Networks generally known to the public but which gives involving a “naturally occurring” product or v Akamai Technologies, held a defendant a competitive edge or market advantage to the a “law of nature” must carefully draft claims in cannot be liable in the US for inducing holder of the secret. light of these decisions, as well as the USPTO’s infringement if two different parties perform Keeping a trade secret can be successful if all guidelines. To streamline prosecution, these different steps of a method patent, ie, of a company’s innovative processes and systems companies should consider explaining in the divided infringement, where direction and are performed in-house, and rigorous controls patent specifi cation how its product exhibits control is not established between the two are put in place to protect access to the processes “markedly diff erent” characteristics from its parties actually performing the method. and systems. For example, an analytics company naturally occurring counterpart. Therefore, claims and patent specifications might receive data from a partner, and then must be carefully drafted with these divided send back only the results of the analysis, so that 3. Divided infringement infringement issues in mind. the partner does not become privy to how the Competitor digital healthcare companies may not For example, a specifi cation should clarify that analysis is performed. perform all steps of a method claim themselves. a step directed to ascertaining the presence of a But relying on trade secret protection is not For example, in the pharmaceutical industry, biomarker is “performed” by a physician ordering without risk. Even if it could otherwise keep companies rarely perform method claim steps a test and not just by a laboratory carrying out the a secret, a digital healthcare company may themselves, but generally direct others to perform test. Moreover, appropriate language should be nonetheless have to disclose its processes to the 42 Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review Conference Special www.lifesciencesipreview.com DIGITAL HEALTH FDA or other organisations, to show that its any public disclosure of the invention before a inventor are provided. While digital healthcare results can be trusted or to allow independent patent application is filed will typically be fatal technology is exciting and rapidly advancing, validation of its results. to patentability. innovators should take action to protect their Also, if the commercial product is a software With the AIA, the US has now joined that innovation before publicly presenting the tool, or operates using software, the underlying club, although some grace periods specific to the information. Q code can often be reverse-engineered by competitors. So deciding whether your innovation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inter Partes Re-Examination: a Low Cost Alternative to Litigation in The
    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Inter partes Re-examination: a Low Cost Alternative to Litigation in the US and Prosecution Strategies in View of the Historically Low Allowance Rate at the by USPTO Anthony C. Tridico, and Carlos M. Téllez Los Lunes de Patentes, Madrid, 30 November 2009 Disclaimer • These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal views of the panelists, are not individualized legal advice, and do not reflect the views of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., and the panelists cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., and the panelists. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed. 22 Outline • Re-exam as a low cost alternative to Litigation in the U.S. • Obviousness and KSR as major factors in rejection of applications • Strategies for dealing with KSR in various types of applications • General prosecution tips – If there is time – tips for avoiding inequitable conduct… 33 Monitoring and Detective Work • Time and money is spent monitoring your competitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Calendar No. 481 104Th Congress, 2D Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Report 104–879
    1 Union Calendar No. 481 104th Congress, 2d Session ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± House Report 104±879 REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DURING THE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 1(d) RULE XI OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 2, 1997.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36±501 WASHINGTON : 1997 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 1 CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL MCCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICH BOUCHER, Virginia LAMAR SMITH, Texas JOHN BRYANT, Texas STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico JACK REED, Rhode Island ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia BOB INGLIS, South Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia XAVIER BECERRA, California STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana JOSEÂ E. SERRANO, New York 2 MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California SONNY BONO, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina MAXINE WATERS, California 3 ED BRYANT, Tennessee STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois BOB BARR, Georgia ALAN F. COFFEY, JR., General Counsel/Staff Director JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Staff Director 1 Henry J. Hyde, Illinois, elected to the Committee as Chairman pursuant to House Resolution 11, approved by the House January 5 (legislative day of January 4), 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Uncertainty and the Standard of Patentability Robert P
    ARTICLE UNCERTAINTY AND THE STANDARD OF PATENTABILITY ROBERT P. MERGES" Table of Contents I. INTRODU CTION ................................................................................ 2 II. THE LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................. 4 A . Threshold Issues ............................................................................ 4 B. Doctrine .......................................................................................... 12 C. The Patent Standard and Races to Invent ................................. 15 D. Relationship Between Patent Standards and Patent Scop e ............................................................................................. .. 17 E. The Proposed Patent Standard ................................................... 19 II1. MODELING THE STANDARD: PATENTS AS INCENTIVES TO IN V EN T ........................................................................................ 20 A. A Formal Model of the Invention Process ............................... 20 B. Low Uncertainty Research and the Model ............................... 29 C. Incentives to Develop ................................................................. 32 D. Why Not Use Commercial Certainty as the Patentability Standard? ................................................. ................................... 33 E. Nonobviousness Doctrine and the Uncertainty-Based Model ............................................................................................. 34 F. Risk Aversion and High-Cost
    [Show full text]
  • Confusing Patent Eligibility
    CONFUSING PATENT ELIGIBILITY DAVID 0. TAYLOR* INTRODUCTION ................................................. 158 I. CODIFYING PATENT ELIGIBILITY ....................... 164 A. The FirstPatent Statute ........................... 164 B. The Patent Statute Between 1793 and 1952................... 166 C. The Modern Patent Statute ................ ..... 170 D. Lessons About Eligibility Law ................... 174 II. UNRAVELING PATENT ELIGIBILITY. ........ ............. 178 A. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs............ 178 B. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l .......... .......... 184 III. UNDERLYING CONFUSION ........................... 186 A. The Requirements of Patentability.................................. 186 B. Claim Breadth............................ 188 1. The Supreme Court's Underlying Concerns............ 189 2. Existing Statutory Requirements Address the Concerns with Claim Breadth .............. 191 3. The Supreme Court Wrongly Rejected Use of Existing Statutory Requirements to Address Claim Breadth ..................................... 197 4. Even if § 101 Was Needed to Exclude Patenting of Natural Laws and Phenomena, A Simple Statutory Interpretation Would Do So .................... 212 C. Claim Abstractness ........................... 221 1. Problems with the Supreme Court's Test................221 2. Existing Statutory Requirements Address Abstractness, Yet the Supreme Court Has Not Even Addressed Them.............................. 223 IV. LACK OF ADMINISTRABILITY ....................... ....... 227 A. Whether a
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Life in the European Community: the Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 4 Volume IV Number 2 Volume IV Book 2 Article 1 1993 Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions Janice McCoy Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Janice McCoy, Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions, 4 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 501 (1993). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol4/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions Janice McCoy' INTRODUCTION Technology has once again overtaken the law. Ever since the United States Supreme Court concluded in 1980 that anything un- der the sun that was made by man could be patented,' and especial- ly since the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") announced in 1987 that it considered nonnaturally occurring non- human animals to be patentable subject matter,2 legislative bodies in both the United States and the European Economic Community ("EEC") have been debating to what extent living matter should be patentable.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Law: a Handbook for Congress
    Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46525 SUMMARY R46525 Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 A patent gives its owner the exclusive right to make, use, import, sell, or offer for sale the invention covered by the patent. The patent system has long been viewed as important to Kevin T. Richards encouraging American innovation by providing an incentive for inventors to create. Without a Legislative Attorney patent system, the reasoning goes, there would be little incentive for invention because anyone could freely copy the inventor’s innovation. Congressional action in recent years has underscored the importance of the patent system, including a major revision to the patent laws in 2011 in the form of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Congress has also demonstrated an interest in patents and pharmaceutical pricing; the types of inventions that may be patented (also referred to as “patentable subject matter”); and the potential impact of patents on a vaccine for COVID-19. As patent law continues to be an area of congressional interest, this report provides background and descriptions of several key patent law doctrines. The report first describes the various parts of a patent, including the specification (which describes the invention) and the claims (which set out the legal boundaries of the patent owner’s exclusive rights). Next, the report provides detail on the basic doctrines governing patentability, enforcement, and patent validity. For patentability, the report details the various requirements that must be met before a patent is allowed to issue.
    [Show full text]
  • TRIPS and Pharmaceutical Patents
    FACT SHEET September 2003 TRIPS and pharmaceutical patents CONTENTS Philosophy: TRIPS attempts to strike a balance 1 What is the basic patent right? 2 A patent is not a permit to put a product on the market 2 Under TRIPS, what are member governments’ obligations on pharmaceutical patents? 2 IN GENERAL (see also “exceptions”) 2 Exceptions 3 ELIGIBILITY FOR PATENTING 3 RESEARCH EXCEPTION AND “BOLAR” PROVISION 3 ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICE, ETC 4 COMPULSORY LICENSING 4 WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR USING COMPULSORY LICENSING? 5 PARALLEL IMPORTS, GREY IMPORTS AND ‘EXHAUSTION’ OF RIGHTS 5 THE DOHA DECLARATION ON TRIPS AND PUBLIC HEALTH 5 IMPORTING UNDER COMPULSORY LICENSING (‘PAR.6’) 6 What does ‘generic’ mean? 6 Developing countries’ transition periods 7 GENERAL 7 PHARMACEUTICALS AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 7 For more information 8 The TRIPS Agreement Philosophy: TRIPS attempts to strike a balance Article 7 Objectives The WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of The protection and enforcement of intellectual property Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) attempts to strike rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and a balance between the long term social objective of dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage providing incentives for future inventions and of producers and users of technological knowledge and creation, and the short term objective of allowing in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations. people to use existing inventions and creations. The agreement covers a wide range of subjects, from Article 8 copyright and trademarks, to integrated circuit Principles designs and trade secrets.
    [Show full text]
  • Bars to Patentability Bars to Patentability
    A lthough you may not be a patent attorney, you may be asked to protect your client’s right to file a patent application on his or her inven- tion. If that occurs, it is imperative that you know how to advise him or her about filing before it’s too late. In the United States, there are eight statutory “bars to patentability.” Any one of these will forever bar an inventor from being able to file an application on an invention that may otherwise meet the criteria for patentability. If that occurs, the invention will fall into the pub- lic domain. Bars to How might these statutory bars arise? Bars to They certainly will come up during the pros- ecution of a patent application. But any one of PatentabilityPatentability these also may be raised in litigation by an accused A Guide for the infringer seeking to evade a judgment of infringe- A Guide for the ment. The defendant will try to demonstrate that GeneralGeneral the patent is invalid, despite the presumption of validity accorded by its issuance by the U.S. Patent PractitionerPractitioner & Trademark Office. Because these bars are the death knell for a client’s rights to an invention, it is important that all lawyers be familiar with them. The “Public Disclosure” Bar: 35 U.S.C. §102(b) A U.S. patent application may not be filed more than one year from the date of a publication in any country disclosing the invention or pub- lic use of the invention in this country. It does not matter whether the publication or public use is by the inventor or someone else; disclosures of the invention to any third party who is not under an obligation to keep it confidential fall within the scope of this statutory bar.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination
    Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination Prepared by Policy Intern Raeanne Young [email protected] May 2008 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION eff.org Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................3 PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN .....................................................................................................4 The Problem With Patent Quality ..................................................................................................4 Policy Rationale: Encouraging Innovation .......................................................................................4 PATENT REEXAMINATION ...................................................................................................................6 Ex parte and Inter partes .............................................................................................................6 OVERALL REEXAMINATION TRENDS ......................................................................................................8 Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data: July , 98 - December 3, 2007 ...............................................8 Inter Partes Reexamination Filing Data: November 29, 999 - December 3, 2007 .............................0 Comparison of Ex Parte and Inter Partes ......................................................................................0 PROMOTING FAIRNESS IN THE PATENT SYSTEM THROUGH REEXAMINATION .............................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter?
    Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter? Christopher A. Cotropia Professor of Law University of Richmond School of Law Mark Lemley William H. Neukom Professor, Stanford Law School partner, Durie Tangri LLP. Bhaven Sampat1 Associate Professor, Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University 1 Corresponding author. 600 W 168th Street, New York, NY USA; [email protected]; Phone: 212-305- 7293 1 Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter? Abstract Patent law both imposes a duty on patent applicants to submit relevant prior art to the PTO and assumes that examiners use this information to determine an application's patentability. In this paper, we examine the validity of these assumptions by studying the use made of applicant-submitted prior art by delving into the actual prosecution process in over a thousand different cases. We find that patent examiners rarely use applicant-submitted art in their rejections to narrow patents, relying almost exclusively on prior art they find themselves. Our findings have implications for a number of important legal and policy disputes, including initiatives to improve patent quality and the strong presumption of validity the law grants issued patents—a presumption that makes patents more difficult to challenge in court. Keywords: Patents; citations; patent examination; bibliometrics Highlights: • Patent examiners rarely use applicant-submitted art to narrow claims before patents issue, relying almost exclusively on prior art they find themselves. • This is not simply because the applicants have drafted around the art they submitted. Nor does the explanation appear to be that applicant art is uniformly weak. • The findings have implications for a number of important legal and policy disputes, including initiatives to improve patent quality and the strong presumption of validity the law grants issued patents.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Round-Up (July 2019)
    July 2, 2019 Vol. 11, No. 4 Overview The Supreme Court Round-Up previews upcoming cases, summarizes opinions, and tracks the actions of the Office of the Solicitor General. Each entry contains a description of the case, as well as a substantive analysis of the Court’s actions. October Term 2018 Argued Cases 1. Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422 (M.D.N.C., 318 F. Supp. 3d 777, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726 (D. Md., 348 F. Supp. 3d 493); jurisdiction postponed Jan. 4, 2019; argued Mar. 26, 2019). The Questions Presented are: (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims. (2) Whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable. (3) Whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Decided June 27, 2019 (588 U.S. __). M.D.N.C. and D. Md./Vacated and remanded. Chief Justice Roberts for a 5-4 Court (Kagan, J., dissenting, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, J.J.). The Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present a nonjusticiable political question because no “judicially discoverable and manageable standards” exist for resolving them. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962). The Framers were aware of electoral districting problems, including partisan gerrymandering, when they chose to assign the task of districting to state legislatures. Specifically, the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers States to decide the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” for members of Congress, and grants Congress the authority to “make or alter” any such rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court October Term 2017: a Preview of Select Cases
    Supreme Court October Term 2017: A Preview of Select Cases Andrew Nolan, Coordinator Acting Section Research Manager Valerie C. Brannon Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia Acting Section Research Manager Ben Harrington Legislative Attorney Jay B. Sykes Legislative Attorney L. Paige Whitaker Legislative Attorney September 19, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44956 Supreme Court October Term 2017: A Preview of Select Cases Summary On October 2, 2017, the Supreme Court is to begin its new term. While the Court issued a number of notable decisions during its last full term, Court watchers have largely agreed that, at least compared to recent terms, the Court’s October 2016 term was diminished both with regard to volume and content. With the Court already accepting over 30 cases for its next term, many of which raise deep and difficult questions in various areas of law, the October 2017 Supreme Court term could be considerably different. The next Court term has the potential to be one of the most consequential in years. A full discussion of every case that the Court will hear during the October 2017 term is beyond the scope of this report (indeed, the Court has to grant certiorari to the majority of cases that will likely make up its docket for the upcoming year). But Table 1 provides brief summaries of the cases the Court has already agreed to hear during the October 2017 term, and many of the cases on the Court’s docket are discussed in existing or forthcoming CRS products. The majority of this report highlights four notable cases of the new term that could impact the work of Congress: (1) Carpenter v.
    [Show full text]