Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[Rainmaker80]

Most of the pundits expect a ruling on Cuozzo by June but it could take a bit longer, no one really knows. As for Cooper, they haven't accepted the writ yet so not sure if it will be heard this term or potentially next or even heard at all.

What is interesting on Cooper is it says it has been "rescheduled' here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cooper-v-lee/

This is interesting as I noticed this change AFTER the orals for Cuozzo were completed. I wonder and HOPE that perhaps SCOTUS is going to make a pretty substantial and landmark / encompassing decision in the Cuozzo case that would affect Cooper and thus the rescheduling. Ie Given Chief Justice Roberts seemed to have issue with the entire process at the PTAB one would hope they simply address it all at once, vs piecemeal, but only time will tell and it likely is just hopium.


As for timing see this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Throughout the term, but mostly during the last months of the term—May, June, and, if necessary, July—the Court announces its opinions. The decision of the Court is subsequently published, first as a slip opinion, and subsequently in the United States Reports. In recent years, opinions have been available on the Supreme Court's website and other legal websites on the morning they are announced.

Edit:

Just found this http://patentlyo.com/ - seems to align with what I said above and apparently some other case, MCM? has similar issues?

More Challenges to USPTO Authority: MCM filed its petition for writ of certiorari directly challenging USPTO authority to conduct inter partes review proceedings with two easy questions:

Does IPR violate Article III of the Constitution?
Does IPR violate the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution?

[MCM Petition and Appendix] MCM’s brief was filed Tom Goldstein along with Ned Heller. The question for the Supreme Court is whether to extend or contract from its position in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) where the court held that Article III of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from withdrawing “from judicial
cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty.” Quoting Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. 272 (1856)).

The brief raises a set of interesting old cases focusing both on the separation of powers and the tradition that patent-revocation for invalidity requires a jury to decide disputed facts.

Ex Parte Wood & Brundage, 22 U.S. 603 (1824)
McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co., 169 U.S. 606 (1898)
Mowry v. Whitney, 81 U.S. 434 (1871)
Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. 272 (1856)
Neilson v. Harford, Webster’s Patent Cases 295 (1841)
Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. 1 (1829)
United States v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 128 U.S. 315 (1888)

Cooper v. Lee raises some parallel issues. Its petition will be considered by the Court in its May 12. [Update: The court has “rescheduled” consideration of Cooper’s brief – perhaps awaiting its own determination in Cuozzo.]