decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCOTUS vs. CAFC, round N+1... FIGHT! | 335 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
s/live with this/let this/ (nt)
Authored by: achurch on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 08:02 AM EDT
(no text)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

SCOTUS vs. CAFC, round N+1... FIGHT!
Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 08:59 AM EDT
IANAL but I don't think they actually can do anything except reverse. They might
use ever stronger language each time and hope someone eventually gets the
message. But the system assumes that people obey their superiors most of the
time.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Advertise reversals?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 11:03 AM EDT
I may be wrong, but can't the court do one of 3 things in response to
appeal/petition: (a) grant it, hear argument, rule; (b) deny cert, leaving
intact the lower ruling; (c) reverse+remand w/o oral argument or even comment.

I'm pretty sure I've heard of cases where (c) happened.
If the SCOTUS gets angry enough at the CAFC, couldn't they simply let it be
known (however formally or informally) that they are more than willing to
wordlessly reverse+remand just about anything that gets sent to them from CAFC?

My thinking is, once litigators know about that state of affairs, then an appeal
will be automatic, and the CAFC will have to deal with getting all their
decisions thrown right back at them en masse, and with a remand they have a
reconsider and even rehear, so it could make more extra work for CAFC than for
SCOTUS.

Workable?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Advertise reversals? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT
  • (d) - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT
    • (e) - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 02:18 AM EDT
      • (f) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 08:32 AM EDT
SCOTUS vs. CAFC, round N+1... FIGHT!
Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT

I think ultimately the Supreme Court will simply issue a flat opinion that the use of a computer does not under any circumstances render something patentable subject matter and that any determination must be made independently of whether a computer is used or not, and then begin reversing rulings and not remanding (ie. taking the decision out of the hands of the Federal Circuit entirely), and referring judges to the Bar Association if they continue to rule against binding precedent. That's, as far as I can tell, the only things the Supreme Court can do. And I think that if the Federal Circuit continues their course, that's exactly what's going to end up happening. I'm pretty sure even the pro-patent Justices will be unhappy about appeals court justices who openly ignore or reject the Court's rulings.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

SCOTUS vs. CAFC, round N+1... FIGHT!
Authored by: nuthead on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT
Reverse the decision and let Scalia write the opinions. They'd get the point
rather quickly. ;)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What decision do you believe was ignored?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT
This decision clearly respects Bilski. Prometheus is not at issue as there is
not Law of Nature here.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )