Appellate Litigation Update


The Supreme Court’s Patent Law Docket: The Supreme Court has granted review in three cases involving patent law this Term: Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., and Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership. This is consistent with the Court’s dramatic revival of interest in the patent field in recent Terms. After reviewing many famous patent cases in the nineteenth century, the Court ceded virtually all patent appeals to the circuit courts for most of the twentieth century and then to the Federal Circuit once that specialized court was formed in 1982. After reviewing only one patent case a year from 1950 through 1982, and a mere twelve patent cases over the next two decades, the Court has greatly picked up its patent pace, granting certiorari in 12 patent cases since 2002. (For historical and statistical analysis, see John F. Duffy, The Federal Circuit in the Shadow of the Solicitor General, 78 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 518, 522 (2010), and Timothy B. Dyk, Foreword: Does the Supreme Court Still Matter?, 57 Am. U. L. Rev. 763, 764-65 (2008).

It is no surprise that the Supreme Court’s interest in patent cases has increased. Intellectual property now accounts for as much as 80% of the value of American corporations, and Congress has considered but failed to pass patent reform legislation in each of the last five congressional sessions. But increasing its patent docket has required the Court to depart from its usual criteria for granting certiorari. Because the Federal Circuit has virtually exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases, patent law does not give rise to circuit conflicts—the usual ground for Supreme Court grants of review. Thus, the Court has taken patent cases solely because they present matters of significant national importance, and has leaned heavily on the Solicitor General’s advice, with more than 10 percent of the Supreme Court’s calls for the views of the Solicitor General over the last 10 years arising in patent cases. See Duffy, supra, at 530.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.