United States: Lessons From The Recent Supreme Court Term: Ordinary Rules Apply In Patent Cases

If the judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit choose to reflect on the recently concluded Term of the United States Supreme Court, in which five of the six Federal Circuit decisions the Supreme Court reviewed were either reversed or vacated,1 they might take some solace by recalling Justice Robert Jackson's earlier observations concerning the meaning of higher court reversals:

"Whenever decisions of one court are reviewed by another, a percentage of them are reversed. That reflects a difference in outlook normally found between personnel comprising different courts. However, reversal by a higher court is not proof that justice is thereby better done. There is no doubt that if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would also be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953)(Jackson, J., concurring). Finality, which imposes closure and legal, doctrinal uniformity, represents one of the cardinal virtues of appellate authority. This Term, more than most in recent time, the Supreme Court exercised its finality often on patent issues, which prompts this Note.

It is indisputable that each of the Supreme Court's patent law decisions this Term possesses significance to patent law generally, with special importance respecting the distinct area of patent law and practice that each decision specifically addresses. It is perhaps less obvious, but potentially more significant to analyze the decisional arc of these Supreme Court decisions, especially if taken in an even broader context by looking back to earlier Supreme Court's earlier patent law decisions reviewing Federal Circuit judgments, to see if there are lessons to be drawn from a discernible decisional pattern. It appears there are such lessons, and from those lessons may be drawn some yet further conclusions, with an eye to predicting and shaping the direction of patent practice in the United States. That is the focus of this Note.

The principal lesson to be drawn is remarkably simple, yet worthy of deeper consideration. The decisional arc seems to teach that when the Federal Circuit has crafted a rule applicable to patent cases that in some way deviates from rules generally and usually applied in litigated matters outside patent law, especially where the rule appears to be a "bright line" test, or an exclusive decisional calculus, the Supreme Court vacates those judgments and re-emphasizes (usually sub silentio) that patent cases are not somehow set apart from being subject to the ordinary rules of federal litigation. If anything, this broader historical view discloses that the development of the language of the Supreme Court in reviewing judgments of the Federal Circuit has devolved from respectful deference, even when reversing a judgment, to outright criticism of the Federal Circuit's reasoning.

Looking at this Term's decisions to discern a larger pattern in a broader, historical context of earlier decisions makes clear that the Federal Circuit's efforts to craft "special" rules for patent cases both draws Supreme Court criticism and directions to restore a doctrinal approach to adapt the regular rules of litigation within the patent context, not create exceptions from those rules for application simply because the controversy invokes the Patent Act.

The objective fact is that the decisional pattern of the Supreme Court's review of Federal Circuit judgments has for some time been principally one of reversals or vacaturs of the judgments and/or reasoning of the Federal Circuit respecting the important questions of patent law and practice under review.

This pattern, regularly rejecting the Federal Circuit's patent decisions, is particularly striking, not least for the reason that the Federal Circuit is unique among the thirteen Courts of Appeals in that it has nationwide appellate jurisdiction, unbounded by the geography of the trial court or administrative agency from which the appeal is taken, but limited to specific subject matters, principally including patent law, for whose jurisdiction the exponents of the creation of the Federal Circuit were primarily motivated. Indeed, one of the most compelling arguments in favor of creating the Federal Circuit was that it would be expert in the distinct subject matters to which its jurisdiction is subject matter specific, thereby assuring a uniformity of decisional law that would reflect this expertise.2

Even more striking is the fact that creation of the Federal Circuit was intended to eliminate the "splits" in regional circuit court opinions respecting patent law that would justify the Supreme Court in exercising its ultimate appellate authority to resolve those "splits" in authority to restore a uniformity of interpretation and enforcement of federal law on important questions of patent law. In fact, one salient purpose of creating the Federal Circuit and vesting it with exclusive appellate jurisdiction over patent cases was to eliminate the potential that, say, the Seventh Circuit had one standard for obviousness while the Second Circuit had a different one. This potential disparity of rules on basic patent law principles did occur in the past and motivated centralizing intermediate appellate review in one, non-regional court.

Indeed, those who led and inspired the movement to create the Federal Circuit as uniquely a subject matter expert Court of Appeals emphasized the benefits that having such a court interpreting patent law, and thereby hoped to bring national uniformity to patent law by having this expert Court of Appeals be the sole intermediate appellate voice on patent law issues. As a practical matter, then, the Federal Circuit, though theoretically the intermediate appellate court, was projected, in the usual circumstance, to be the final arbiter of the legal issues related to the subject matter of the appeals before it, especially patent law. That was presumed to be the case because, for most cases decided by the Federal Circuit, very much analogous to the decisions of the regional Courts of Appeals, the intermediate appellate court's decision is de facto the ultimate decision.

The decisional pattern of Supreme Court cases from Federal Circuit judgments discloses that the reality has been quite different from the expectation. As a practical matter, the Supreme Court, constitutionally the final arbiter of all legal matters related to federal law, has, in effect, become a "super Federal Circuit," to paraphrase and adapt Justice Jackson's earlier-quoted characterization, by reversing and vacating Federal Circuit pronouncements on subject matters for which the Federal Circuit was created and entrusted by Congress with special, expert and exclusive subject matter appellate jurisdiction.

By way of introductory example, this term, perhaps the apogee of the Supreme Court's criticism of Federal Circuit judgments came in Limelight, where a unanimous Supreme Court, in reversing the Federal Circuit's en banc decision defining the requirements of proving induced infringement in a patent infringement case, declared, "[t]he Federal Circuit's analysis fundamentally misunderstands what it means to infringe a method patent." Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111, 2117 (2014). Consider the implication of this comment: the Court of Appeals, specifically created to have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over patent cases, a substantial bulk of whose case load addresses those issues daily and whose members are chosen for their expertise and experience in this area of law, according to a unanimous Supreme Court, "fundamentally misunderstands" a basic concept of patent infringement liability. Though the Court's observation in Limelight may be the most pointed, there are others, which will be discussed further below that give scarcely lip service deference to the Federal Circuit's pronouncement on review before the Supreme Court.

Immediately upon the issuance of each of these opinions, a phalanx of commentators offered their instant analysis of what the Court had apparently done in each individual case and why, trying to discern potential lessons for the future direction the law may develop for patent litigation from the individual case. Ultimately, after the term closed, one observation pervaded This note leaves to others to sift and analyze the language of each of this Term's decisions in favor of looking at the ultimate holdings of each, in comparison to what the Federal Circuit had done. With reference to earlier Supreme Court cases reviewing Federal Circuit judgments, this note argues that there is in fact a discernible pattern whereby the Supreme Court continues to rein in Federal Circuit pronouncements on patent law that tend to establish rules that are outliers to the usual rules and applications in the context of other, non-patent litigations. Each of this Term's patent cases are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.

Read in full here: Lessons from the Recent Supreme Court Term: Ordinary Rules Apply in Patent Cases

Footnotes

1 In the order of their decision by the Supreme Court: Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843 (2014); Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014); Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014); Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014); Limelight Networks, Inc. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014); Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2247 (2014).

2 28 U.S.C. §1295 details the discrete subject matters for which appeals from district courts are exclusively to be taken to the Federal Circuit, one of which relates to appeals from judgments in the District Courts where jurisdiction is based on §1338, except, principally, for copyright and trademark.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Jones Day
Davis & Gilbert
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Jones Day
Davis & Gilbert
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions