The Supreme Court granted certiorari in a dozen cases on Friday, but it still has a very small list — smaller than it has been at this point in any of the past decade. While the majority of the court should be happy with this situation (it only takes four justices to grant certiorari), not all justices think the court’s diminished slate is a good thing.
Speaking at the Sixth Circuit Judicial Conference last month, Judge Kavanaugh male The Court would struggle to approve 50 cases this term, and expressed the view that the Court could (and should) hear more than 75 cases each term.
today Order list From the long conference note that Judge Kavanaugh was going to grant certiorari in one of the cases his colleagues went through: CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.a patent case asking the question “whether a new and useful method of measuring a natural phenomenon, which improves upon previous methods of measuring that same phenomenon, is eligible for patent protection under Section 101.”
This is not the first time that Judge Kavanaugh has indicated his disagreement with his colleagues in refusing to grant certiorari. It’s not even the first time he’s indicated a desire to grant certiorari in a patent case. Last May, the docket cited two other patent cases in which Justice Kavanaugh would have granted certiorari, but his colleagues had not.
I’ll admit that I’m not particularly keen on the Court taking up more patent cases, but I agree with Judge Kavanaugh that the Court can and should take up more cases than it does, and it would be great if at least three of his colleagues agreed .