No. 20-934
Haritha Samaranayake, et al. v. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office
Response Waived
Tags: administrative-procedure administrative-procedure-act due-process evidentiary-record federal-circuit patent separation-of-powers standing statutory-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Patent Trademark
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Patent Trademark
Latest Conference:
2021-02-19
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether, in creating the required evidentiary record de novo rather than merely reviewing the agency Record below, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exceeded its statutory jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 144.
Whether 5th Amendment due process requires a litigant be afforded the opportunity to proffer rebuttal evidence in response to evidence newly entered by a Federal Court.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exceeded its statutory jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 144
Docket Entries
2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-25
Waiver of right of respondent Iancu, Andrei to respond filed.
2020-01-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 10, 2021)
Attorneys
Haritha Samaranayake, et al.
Iancu, Andrei
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent