Thanks for posting. Worthwhile read.
1. Sullivan and Cromwell is a top tier law firm. Cuozzo is well-represented.
2. Reply Brief is very well done; cogently points out the weaknesses in the government's case and why SCOTUS should accept review (which SCOTUS did on 1/15/16). As every first year law student learns, one primary function of the law is to afford predictability to the citizenry. Without predictability, it is impossible to conduct commerce and to administer one's affairs in any rational way. Chaos reigns. Here, not even CAFC panels (3 judge panels composed from the entire court and assigned to various cases) have agreed on whether PTAB review decisions are judicially reviewable, i.e., on the interpretation/constitutionality of the federal statute involved. Inotherwords, the only court to review the statute has issued conflicting opinions on an enormously important question having multiple constitutional implications (separation of powers, scope/extent of executive power). Chaos is currently prevailing. It is no wonder that SCOTUS granted writ,
3. The notion that Congress could create an agency that can review, and (using a standard (BRI) different than that traditionally used, no less, and apparently not expressly stated in the statute) invalidate patents (the existence of which as a property right is contemplated by the constitution, and then for such agency decisions to be unreviewable in the courts for abuse/error is completely repugnant to the concept of checks and balances among our three branches of government (and how agency errors/abuses are dealt with in other contexts). I doubt Congress ever intended to accord PTAB such unfettered power (PTAB's interpretation of the statute, IMO, is wrong as dissenting Justice Newman's opinion explained), but if they did, any such action would require a tortured interpretation of the Constitution (Congress does not have the power to eliminate any part of the judicial branch's inherent power to review executive branch actions).
4. It might already have been posted, but a great summary and brief discussion of the issues in the case is bound here: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/15/supreme-court-accepts-cuozzo-speed-technologies-ipr-appeal/id=65076/. IThe 10 minutes needed to carefully read this article would be time well spent.