Monday, December 09, 2019

Oral argument in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP on 9 December 2019

Mr. Charnes got the ball rolling with

The text of the America Invents Act, the statutory history, the statute's policy goals, and this Court's decision in Cuozzo all confirm that Section 314(d) precludes judicial review of the director's time-barred determination under section 315(b).

Justice Kavanaugh spoke of "shenanigans":

Cuozzo had a part that, of course, responded to concerns that have been raised, I --I think in the dissent, and says we --our interpretation does not enable the agency to act outside its statutory limits, for example; such shenanigans may be properly reviewable and focused really on the narrow issue before it. So how do we take into account that language from the decision?

Justice Gorsuch spoke of "killing patents":

But, Mr. Charnes, let's --let's --just to follow up on this, let's just hypothesize that someone has tried to undo this patent four times or maybe even more in a court of law, failed for various reasons every single time, and then comes to the director of patents, who has a political mission, perhaps, to kill patents, let's just say. And it is clearly time-barred under the statute. Let's just hypothesize that. And yet, the director goes ahead and does it anyway.

Under your submission to the Court, I believe you're saying that is a shenanigan this Court cannot review.

The word "only" gets explicated:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: I think you are saying it's wrong, to pick up on Justice Ginsburg's question, at least the use of the word "only."

MR. CHARNES: I --I think it's not a complete description. I think that's --let me, Justice Kavanaugh --I think it's not --that's not the only basis that this Court explained in Cuozzo. I think that's --that's a fair point.


Post a Comment

<< Home