Month: February 2020

Today's episode brings you some good news from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to Florida's effort to restore the vote to felons who have completed their sentences -- and the Republicans' ongoing efforts to stop it. We also revisit the emoluments clause litigations pending in two jurisdictions as well as tackle a novel question from one of our listeners. You won't want to miss it!

We begin with a brief Andrew Was Wrong / Andrew Was Right segment regarding emoluments. Friend of the show Seth Barrett Tillman writes in to correct us on two procedural issues and also to venture an opinion that any future emoluments cases would have to be brought by both houses of Congress. Find out why Andrew disagrees and stands by his original recommendation in Episode 361 that Nancy Pelosi authorize a new vote by the full House of Representatives to re-file the case originally brought in Blumenthal v. Trump.

Then it's time for our main segment on the breaking decision out of the 11th Circuit striking down the Florida legislature's effort to gut Amendment 4 (which was meant to restore voting rights to ex-felons). Find out why the court ruled the way it did, what happens next, and why there may be cause for optimism in the Sunshine State!

After that, it's time for a fascinating, clever, but (sadly) wrong suggestion from a listener regarding a writ of mandamus and the current logjam in Congress.

We end, as always, with #T3BE, and Thomas's seven-question winning streak on the line regarding a contract and an unfortunate foreman who suffers an accident prior to starting his duties. Will Thomas prevail? Listen and find out! And don't forget to play along by sharing out the show on social media!

Appearances

None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. In the opening segment, Andrew breaks down the Supreme Court case of Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (2019).
2. You'll want to read the 11th Circuit's opinion for yourself. We last discussed the Florida legislature's efforts to gut Amendment 4 back in Episode 266.

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

On Dec. 9, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, a case involving a dispute over certain appeal and time restrictions applicable to “inter partes review” (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
In 2013, Ingenio--a predecessor entity to petitioner Thryv, Inc.--initiated IPR proceedings to challenge the validity of a patent held by Click-to-Call Technologies, LP (CTC). CTC countered that the IPR was time-barred under the one-year limit of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), because a complaint alleging infringement of that patent had been served on Ingenio back in 2001, well over one year before the IPR request. The Board rejected CTC’s argument, reasoning that the time bar did not apply because the complaint in question had been voluntarily dismissed, and was to be treated as if non-existent. Proceeding with IPR, the Board then ruled various claims of the disputed patent to be unpatentable.
After a complicated series of appellate proceedings that included a vacatur and remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued the en banc decision that formed the basis for Thryv’s certiorari petition in this case. Citing a recent determination it had made in a similar case, the court first decided that it had jurisdiction to review the IPR time-bar dispute. Title 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) provides that a decision whether to institute an IPR “shall be final and nonappealable,” but the court treated that bar as inapplicable to questions of timeliness as opposed to the merits. The Federal Circuit then held that the time bar of § 315(b) was triggered by service of any complaint, even one later dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the IPR as time-barred: a victory for CTC. But the Supreme Court then granted Thryv’s certiorari petition to address anew the key jurisdictional issue: whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR upon finding that § 315(b)’s time bar did not apply.
To discuss the case, we have Robert J. Rando, Founder and Lead Counsel, the Rando Law Firm P.C.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.