Quanta Decision Illustrates Case Against Specialized Patent Court
from the no-more-federal-circuit dept
I agree with Mike that the Quanta v. LG decision was a big victory for common sense in patent law. I think it's worth taking a step back to note that this is a continuation of the trend that Mike identified last year. This is at least the fourth time in as many years that the Supreme Court has taken a patent law case, and in every case they've overruled a bad decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has jurisdiction over patent appeals. The Federal Circuit has spent the last 15 years making a mess of patent law, and the Supreme Court has finally started to notice and is working to clean up the Federal Circuit's messes. But it's hard because patents are one of a handful of major issues on its docket, whereas the Supreme Court has lots of other subjects it needs to deal with. Even if the Supreme Court continues taking patent cases and smacking down the Federal Circuit every time, it will still take years to undo all the damage the Federal Circuit has done.
The lesson here is that the creation of the Federal Circuit in the early 1980s was a mistake. Before Congress created the court to handle patent cases, patent appeals were handled by the same courts that handled other kinds of appeals. There tends to be a lot more diversity on the normal circuit courts, which helps the judges on the courts to have a better sense of perspective and not see every case as an opportunity to expand patenting. Perhaps more importantly, the competition among circuits made the Supreme Court's job a lot easier. If one circuit wandered off the reservation, other circuits would typically hand down decisions more consistent with Supreme Court precedent, producing what the lawyers call a "circuit split." That would serve as a signal that the Supreme Court needed to step in, and it allowed the high court to simply give its blessing to the circuit whose rulings were closer to the Supreme Court's own thinking. In contrast, the current setup forces the Supreme Court to do a lot of the heavy lifting itself, repeatedly reviewing and overruling Federal Circuit decisions in an effort to establish a better set of precedents. Congress should give the Supreme Court a hand by eliminating the Federal Circuit and restoring jurisdiction over patent appeals to the other circuits. The judges currently on the Federal Circuit should probably be re-assigned to the other circuits, where they can provide helpful advice on the nuances of patent law to their colleagues but won't have enough votes to continue indiscriminately expanding patent law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cafc, patents, specialized courts, supreme court
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Heck, it seem that the court is the most uncorrupted branch of the US government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
before you start praising SCOTUS decisions just go and read about Kelo v. City of New London case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London
You don't own a house, punk ?
Of course not
Otherwise you might be pulling your hair out as many many people did...
And my guess is you'll never own a patent
It's so simple to be a little techdirt lemming without any intellectual or real property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I told everybody before that I AM a troll - a PATENT TROLL
AS far as techdirt is concerned I am just taking a 2-min shitting break here, from time to time
YOu need to vent out somewhere these days, dude, or you go crazy
Now shut up if you don't have anything to add to the subject at hand which is SCOTUS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the case you brought as an example makes me yearn for the days dorpus posted. It has no relevance whatsoever.
And to be a PATENT TROLL, you would have to actually have some patents. Many patents, in fact, for the most part ACQUIRED, as opposed to developed. Being an angry douche is not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I brought up relevant recent example of the current Supreme Court's "wisdom"
and you didn't even get it
If you just shut up and read then you might actually learn something
poka pridurok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) If you are new here, ignore Dorpus and angry dude. Those 2 are not the only ones that disagree with TechDirt on some matters, but they *ARE* the most stupid. Generally speaking, angry dude is probably a Troll and Dorpus is at least border line, when he shows up.
2) SCOTUS does tend to be the least corrupt court. This is not ALWAYS true, and sometimes make rulings I personally disagree with. Point being though, they tend to make rulings that obey the spirit of the law (as is their job).
I'd say about 85-90% of the cases they hear they usually make the proper ruling. If there is any doubt to that look it up yourself. The 60's alone should show that, in the end, SCOTUS ends up doing 'the right thing' most of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their recent decision on patent exhaustion makes a lot of sense, but then I'm not a lawyer - oh wait neither is AD !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
endangered species
Someday my great-grandkids are going to say, "Big Daddy (cause that's what they'll call me), what's a patent?"
And I'll put on my crotchety old man voice and say, "Sheesh, don't they teach you kids anything about history at that college of yours?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shill is a shill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shill is a shill
We've asked you this in the past, and I need to ask it again: please stop assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a "shill." It's unbecoming, and makes it appear as if you have no real argument.
Tim does not work for Cisco. Nor do I. I do not do any public policy work for any company. And, in fact (as has been pointed out to you), I actively disagree with Cisco's position on patents and patent reform.
But why let facts get in the way of an insult when you have no argument, huh?
If you can't come up with a real argument, I'd suggest you go post your lies somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]