Arunachalam v. Uber Techs.
In brief
The Supreme Court threw out Arunachalam's petition for review (dismissed it), did not grant the request to proceed without paying filing fees, and left the constitutional questions undecided.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 26, 2020
- What it’s about
- This case involves a petition for review of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding a dispute between Arunachalam and Uber Technologies. The specific legal details of the dispute are not provided in the available record.
- Who it affects
- Arunachalam and Uber received no Supreme Court ruling on the listed questions, and the request to proceed without paying filing fees was not granted.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The petition raised questions about a Federal Circuit judgment, the appointment of patent-board judges, and whether Section 101 is too vague.
Question presented
1. Whether the Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 judgment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment? 2. Whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) administrative patent judges (APJs) are "inferior officers" or "principal officers" under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution? 3. Whether 35 U.S.C. § 101 is unconstitutionally vague?
What the Court decided
Holding
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
- Result
- Dismissed
What's next
This Supreme Court docket action is finished. No further Supreme Court step or ruling on the listed questions is identified in the record.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: Arunachalam
Court Order added: Main Document
Court Order added: Proof of Service
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- Why did the Court throw out the petition?
- The order cites Supreme Court Rule 39.8 but gives no more detailed explanation.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.