Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 18, 2023

Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:09-cv-04515
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Association For Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Judge Engelmayer ordered a status update before possible case closure.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in Association For Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office were directed to file a joint status update concerning any outstanding issues.

What happened

Association For Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office had been inactive since the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling that affirmed part of and reversed part of an earlier decision in the case.

The district court directed the parties to file a joint update by August 25, 2023, identifying any remaining issues. The order did not decide those issues.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer said the case would be closed if no issues remained or if the court did not receive the update.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office · No. 1:09-cv-04515
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Aug. 18, 2023

Background The opinion states that the Supreme Court, on June 13, 2013, affirmed part of and reversed part of the Federal Circuit’s decision concerning an earlier decision by Judge Sweet in this case. The parties had taken no action in the case since that Supreme Court ruling.

Order The court directed the parties to file a joint status update by August 25, 2023, addressing any outstanding issues. The court stated that it would close the case if no outstanding issues existed or if it did not receive an update. The order did not resolve the underlying issues or state that the case was closed.

Classification and effect This is a procedural order addressing the status of an inactive case. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer required a filing and described a possible future case closure; the order itself did not grant or deny a merits motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.