There are a number of petitions to be seen by the Supreme Court. These petitions reflect the public desires to review government policy in specific cases. The petitions to be seen include Iancu v. NantKwest Inc. and Maguire v. Edrei among others. Featured in the identified petitions are the issues of personnel expenses regarding the patent process and the definition of “excessive force” in regards to acoustic devices and the sound they produce.
What follows is an excerpt from the SCOTUS blog.
“This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the scrutiny applicable to a government policy of pretrial detainment for misdemeanor and traffic-offense arrestees based solely on their inability to pay a predetermined bail amount, the requirements for a patent to satisfy Section 101 of the Patent Act, the expenses encompassed in the phrase ‘[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings’ in 35 U.S.C. § 145, and whether the use of an acoustic device can constitute constitutionally excessive force.
The petitions of the week are:
Issue: Whether the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. § 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the United States Patent and Trademark Office incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation.”
Read the rest on the “Petitions of the Week” feature from the SCOTUS blog.
Jorge J. Perez is an attorney in South Florida. He is a self-professed history buff.