No. 21-1056
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., et al.
Amici (2)
Experienced Counsel
Tags: 35-usc-101 alice-corp-v-cls-bank alice-test federal-circuit patent-act patent-eligibility section-101 specificity unconventionality unexpected-results
Key Terms:
Patent Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Patent Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-05-12
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 require "specificity," "unexpected results" and "unconventionality," in conflict with the Patent Act and this Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 require 'specificity,' 'unexpected results' and 'unconventionality' in conflict with the Patent Act and this Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)?
Docket Entries
2022-05-16
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2022-04-15
Reply of petitioner Universal Secure Registry LLC filed.
2022-04-01
Brief of respondents Apple Inc., et al. in opposition filed.
2022-03-02
Brief amicus curiae of Intertrust Technologies Corporation filed.
2022-03-02
Brief amicus curiae of Paul R. Michel filed.
2022-02-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 1, 2022.
2022-02-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 2, 2022 to April 1, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 2, 2022)
Attorneys
Apple Inc., et al.
Mark D. Selwyn — Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Respondent
Intertrust Technologies Corporation
Lisa Marie Geary — RMP LLP, Amicus
Paul R. Michel
Matthew James Dowd — Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Amicus
Universal Secure Registry LLC
Visa Inc. and Visa U.S.A. Inc.
Steffen Nathanael Johnson — Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Respondent