Three SCOTUS actions of note for 1/22/19 (Trump, guns, patents)

Link is to today’s Supreme Court order list.

On it, the Supreme Court entered a stay of the District Court’s injunction of the administration’s military transgender policy, allowing the policy to go into effect while the Ninth Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court considers appeals in the case. The Supreme did deny certiorari before judgement, meaning they will not consider the case until the Ninth Circuit completes its appellate review of the case.

Also on the order list, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the above linked case.

Issue : Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause and the constitutional right to travel.

I fully expect the Supreme Court to reverse the Second Circuit and strike down this clearly unconstitutional statute.

There was one ruling in an argued case today, the judgement as follows:

Holding : The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).

Judgment : Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on January 22, 2019.

(Note: It was the Federal Circuit that was affirmed.)

Tell me if I have this right:

Company A invents something – doesn’t file for a patent on it. Sells said item to Company b who is supposed to keep this item “confidential” (even though they now own it). At some point Company b starts selling the item. Sometime after that Company A tries to patent the item, but Company b says, sorry can’t do that it’s bee in public use/on sale before you filed the patent.

So the 9-0 rulling was it for Company A or for Company b???

Helsinn Healthcare S.A., the Petitioner in this case, was the inventor. The invention was palonosetron, an anti-nausea, anti-vomiting drug for use during chemotherapy. They licensed an unspecified company to distribute and market the drug to customers. They filed a provisional patent sometime afterwards. At a later date, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. tried to bring a generic version of the drug to market. Helsinn filed a patent infringement lawsuit.

If you read the summary of the decision at the link above, it gives a brief summary of the order of events. The whole decision barely covers 9 pages and the summary is a very short read.

The decision is in favor of Teva and against Helsinn.

BTW, I did not mention in my OP or thread title, but there was an interesting statement in regards to denial of certiorari by Justice Alito (joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) in the case Joseph A. Kennedy v Bremerton School District.

The Justices agree with the denial of certiorari, on the basis that the factual record is too incomplete to make a decision on the question presented using this case. This is the praying football coach case.

Justice Alito contends that the Ninth Circuit is misapplying the Supreme Court’s precedent in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410 (2006) and goes on in slightly over 5 pages to point out why. It is likely if the Supreme Court gets a better case on this issue, they will take it up.

The statement can be found on the orders link in my OP.