The Federal Circuit’s Blind Spot: ParkerVision and the Problem of Invisible Reasoning
Patent – Patently-O 2024-12-04
Summary:
by Dennis Crouch
Two more amicus briefs have been filed in support of ParkerVision’s petition challenging the Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 practice of issuing summary affirmances of USPTO appeal without opinion. Courts typically provide written explanations for their decisions – it’s a fundamental aspect of our judicial system that helps ensure accountability, enable meaningful review, and develop precedent. Yet the Federal Circuit has been issuing one-word affirmances in nearly half of its patent cases, leaving parties and the public in the dark about its reasoning. While this practice would be concerning in any context, ParkerVision’s petition raises a more precise challenge: 35 U.S.C. § 144 explicitly requires the Federal Circuit to “issue to the Director its mandate and opinion” in appeals from the Patent Office. Two new amicus briefs have been filed supporting ParkerVision’s argument that the court’s Rule 36 practice of issuing summary affirmances without opinion violates this statutory mandate.
Petition and Amicus Briefs in ParkerVision v. TCL:
- Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Nov 4, 2024) View Petition
- Injustice Pool, LLC (Nov 20, 2024) View Brief
- Fair Inventing Fund (Nov 20, 2024) View Brief
- Phyllis Schlafly Eagles and Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund (Dec 2, 2024) View Brief
- Bar Association for the District of Columbia (Dec 3, 2024) View Brief
The Bar Association of the District of Columbia: A Voice for IP Practitioners
The BADC, through its Intellectual Property Section, brings the perspective of practitioners who regularly appear before both the USPTO and Federal Circuit.