About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017) »

January 29, 2017

Comments

Unfortunate that such a useful decision has not been made precedental.

The CAFC is making *far* too many decisions non-precedential. In fact, the *majority* of CAFC decisions in recent years are non-precedential. I am not aware of any other circuit in which the ratio of non-prec to prec is this high. This is really an abuse of the rule that allows for non-prec decisions. Decisions of a court of appeals should be precedential by default. I agree that it is important that panels be able to set *some* decisions into a non-precedential category, but not a frank majority of decisions. What of stare decisis?

This is an entirely foreseeable side effect of the Supreme Court smacking down the CAFC.

It is time for Congress to use its Constitutional power of jurisdiction stripping to remove the Supreme Court from patent appeals (since patent appeals are not a matter of original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court), and appoint a NEW Article III court for patent appeals (an Article III court preserves the holding of "judicial review" from the Marbury case; and a new court is needed, given the rather obvious infirmity of the brow-beaten CAFC.

Is this Congress astute enough of its own power and the need and the path forward?

Sadly, I remain...

Hey Skeptical,

Well-stated. Sadly, like you, "I remain skeptical."

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30