Bouf, thanks for the Kudos. I agree that getting certiorari is a longshot. I also agree with your fairly non-controversial conclusion that the SCOTUS looks for broader implications and generally does not take cases limited to individual circumstances. Indeed, that was the great conceptual challenge in this project, namely giving the Petition a shot at success by formulating an angle making the case bigger than its individual circumstances.
Our Petition is replete with grounds of public importance beyond our individual dispute. The Supreme Court's precedents specifically state that fraud on the court in patent cases, is a matter of public concern beyond the individual matter. Because this is a patent case, this is not an ordinary fraud on the court case for certiorari purposes.
We have billions of dollars in lost market cap. The adverse public health consequences. The Supreme Court hasn't taken a major fraud on the court case in nearly 80 years since Hazel-Atlas.
Further, we rely directly on the plain language of Supreme Court Rule 10a, which provides for the grant of certiorari in cases where the lower courts have went so far astray, requiring the Supreme Court to exercise its supervisory power. Most Petitions rely upon a "circuit split", but we did not do so. We relied on this seldom used provision, enhancing the uniqueness of our Petition.
At the end of the day, either the Supreme Court agrees that there has been a fraud upon the court unremedied by an institutional failure of the lower courts, or they disagree, and will deny certiorari.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
