Law Commons^™

The Federal Circuit As An Institution, Ryan G. Vacca

Law Faculty Scholarship

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a unique institution. Unlike other circuit courts, the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is bound by subject area rather than geography, and it was created to address a unique set of problems specific to patent law. These characteristics have affected its institutional development and made the court one of the most frequently studied appellate courts. This chapter examines this development and describes the evolving qualities that have helped the Federal Circuit distinguish itself, for better or worse, as an institution.

This chapter begins with an overview of the concerns existing before creation of …

Acting Like An Administrative Agency: The Federal Circuit En Banc, Ryan G. Vacca

Law Faculty Scholarship

When Congress created the Federal Circuit in 1982, it thought it was creating a court of appeals. Little did it know that it was also creating a quasi-administrative agency that would engage in substantive rulemaking and set policy in a manner substantially similar to administrative agencies. In this Article, I examine the Federal Circuit's practices when it orders a case to be heard en banc and illustrate how these practices cause the Federal Circuit to look very much like an administrative agency engaging in substantive rulemaking. The number and breadth of questions the Federal Circuit agrees to hear en banc …

Who's At The Helm - The Federal Circuit's Rule Of Deference And The Systemic Absence Of Controlling Precedent In Matters Of Patent Litigation Procedure, Peter J. Karol

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article considers the Federal Circuit’s rule of deference to the law of the regional circuits in matters of procedure as that rule approaches its twenty-fifth anniversary. Using the recent Bell Atlantic v. Twombly pleading case as an illustration, the article observes that the structure of the current appellate review scheme creates a systemic absence of controlling precedent relating to patent litigation procedure. Moreover, the arguments usually advanced for the rule’s existence, including efficiency gains and legislative history, are doubtful. As prior scholarship has shown, the rule is not a natural byproduct of the appellate structure created by Congress when …

Zurko, Gartside, And Lee: How Might They Affect Patent Prosecution?, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Interactions between the PTO and the courts are more complex than for most agencies. PTO decisions may be challenged not only directly but also collaterally. In the latter context, the Supreme Court has sometimes been critical of the lax standards applied when issuing patents.

While being upheld in collateral review is the ultimate issue of concern to patentees, patents must first be obtained. Thus, this paper focuses on direct challenges to PTO actions--and more specifically, on the review arising under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141-44 as addressed in Zurko, Gartside, and Lee.

Since the Supreme Court reversed the …

Direct Judicial Review Of Pto Decisions: Jurisdictional Proposals, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Judicial review of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") decisions is complex-- perhaps more than that of any other agency. One source of complexity is that courts review its decisions both collaterally and directly.

One goal of this article is to map possible routes to judicial review and suggest strategies for avoiding jurisdictional uncertainties and delay. The core thesis of this article, however, is that parties should not need to cope with arcane review schemes. Direct PTO review can and ought to be simplified. This can be accomplished by adjusting the Federal Circuit's original and appellate jurisdiction.

Chevron Deference To The Uspto At The Federal Circuit, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

Courts have long deferred to agency views of law, but they have also often refused. The Federal Circuit, too, defers on some occasions but not others. This paper examines the apparent inconsistency in its cases.

Zurko Raises Issue Of Patentability Standards, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

In re Zurko isolated one of the oldest U.S. agencies from mainstream administrative law because the Federal Circuit has chosen to review the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office more as it would a federal district court. The case is important, if only because the Supreme Court rarely treats the PTO as an agency. Also, regardless of whether the issue or the Federal Circuit itself is the primary target, the decision could have a major effect on the type of case most commonly encountered by that court.

Law And Fact In Patent Litigation: Form Versus Function, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Recently, the Supreme Court sent Dennison Mfg. v. Panduit Corp. back to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). It remanded with explicit directions that the lower court consider the extent to which Rule 52(a) governs appellate review of determinations of obviousness.

It is by no means certain that obviousness determinations should be treated as questions of law. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that courts seek to review findings of obviousness (or nonobviousness) more intensely than would be appropriate under the "clearly erroneous" or "substantial evidence" standards. If the courts are inclined to persist in more intense review …