Supreme Court to Apple and Cisco: Explain Why Courts Can Rule in Silence
Imagine losing a patent fight after exhaustive briefs — only for an appeals court to shrug with 'AFFIRMED. See Rule 36.' Now the Supreme Court wants answers from Apple and Cisco.
⚡ Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court demands Apple and Cisco respond to petition challenging Federal Circuit Rule 36's silent affirmations. 𝕏
- Rule 36 overuse decried as 'dereliction of duty' by ex-Chief Judge Michel, risking patent law clarity. 𝕏
- Case ties to network patents vital for AI; potential SCOTUS review could demand more judicial explanations. 𝕏
Worth sharing?
Get the best Legal Tech stories of the week in your inbox — no noise, no spam.
Originally reported by IPWatchdog
Related Stories
IP & Copyright
Supreme Court, Define 'Abstract Idea' Already: USAA v. PNC Could End the Alice Nightmare
IP & Copyright
Examiners' Secret Weapon: 25% of Patent Rejections Cite Invisible Prior Art
IP & Copyright
Federal Circuit's Nexus Ratchet Meets Its Match: Printed Matter's Symmetry Test
IP & Copyright