The Supreme Court dismissed high-profile intellectual property petitions, including ParkerVision's challenge regarding the Federal Circuit's one-word affirmances under Rule 36(a). ParkerVision contended that such actions violate 35 U.S.C. § 144, which mandates the issuance of opinions that provide rationale for court decisions. The case traced back to the PTAB's invalidation of ParkerVision's patents, with the CAFC increasingly utilizing Rule 36, raising questions about the clarity and transparency of judicial reasoning, contrary to the court's historical standards set by its first Chief Judge, Howard T. Markey.
According to ParkerVision, the CAFC's one-word affirmances under Rule 36(a) negate the requirement set by 35 U.S.C. § 144 for courts to provide opinions.
Historically, opinions were defined as detailed statements of reasons for decisions, a principle emphasized by CAFC’s first Chief Judge, Howard T. Markey.
Collection
[
|
...
]