ParkerVision Files Reply in U.S. Supreme Court Cert. Petition Calling for End to Federal Circuit's Use of Rule 36 in PTAB Appeals
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR) has filed a reply brief supporting its Supreme Court petition challenging the Federal Circuit's use of Rule 36 one-word affirmances in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) appeals. The case, No. 24-518, against TCL and LG Electronics, argues that these brief affirmances violate Section 144 of the Patent Act, which requires a detailed court opinion.
The petition has received substantial support from thirteen amici across nine briefs, including Harvard Law School's Professor Mary Ann Glendon and former Federal Circuit judges Paul Michel and Kathleen O'Malley. The case focuses on the Federal Circuit's practice of using Rule 36 to affirm PTAB patent invalidations in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
The respondents (TCL and LGE) did not dispute the merits of ParkerVision's petition in their opposition brief. The Supreme Court's decision could significantly impact patent appeal procedures, potentially ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the U.S. patent system.
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR) ha presentato un breve di risposta a sostegno della sua petizione alla Corte Suprema, che contesta l'uso da parte del Federal Circuit della regola 36 per affermazioni in una sola parola nelle appelli del Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Il caso, No. 24-518, contro TCL e LG Electronics, sostiene che queste brevi affermazioni violano la Sezione 144 del Patent Act, che richiede un'opinione dettagliata del tribunale.
La petizione ha ricevuto un sostegno sostanziale da tredici amici attraverso nove documenti, tra cui la Professoressa Mary Ann Glendon della Harvard Law School e gli ex giudici del Federal Circuit Paul Michel e Kathleen O'Malley. Il caso si concentra sulla pratica del Federal Circuit di utilizzare la regola 36 per confermare le invalidazioni di brevetti del PTAB nelle procedure di revisione inter partes (IPR).
I convenuti (TCL e LGE) non hanno contestato i meriti della petizione di ParkerVision nel loro documento di opposizione. La decisione della Corte Suprema potrebbe avere un impatto significativo sulle procedure di appello dei brevetti, potenzialmente garantendo maggiore trasparenza e responsabilità nel sistema dei brevetti statunitensi.
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR) ha presentado un breve de respuesta apoyando su petición ante la Corte Suprema, desafiando el uso de la Regla 36 por parte del Circuito Federal para afirmaciones de una sola palabra en las apelaciones del Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). El caso, No. 24-518, contra TCL y LG Electronics, argumenta que estas breves afirmaciones violan la Sección 144 de la Ley de Patentes, que requiere una opinión judicial detallada.
La petición ha recibido un apoyo sustancial de trece amigos a través de nueve escritos, incluyendo a la Profesora Mary Ann Glendon de la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard y a los ex jueces del Circuito Federal Paul Michel y Kathleen O'Malley. El caso se centra en la práctica del Circuito Federal de utilizar la Regla 36 para afirmar las invalidaciones de patentes del PTAB en los procedimientos de revisión inter partes (IPR).
Los demandados (TCL y LGE) no disputaron los méritos de la petición de ParkerVision en su escrito de oposición. La decisión de la Corte Suprema podría tener un impacto significativo en los procedimientos de apelación de patentes, potencialmente asegurando una mayor transparencia y responsabilidad en el sistema de patentes de EE.UU.
파커비전 (OTCQB:PRKR)는 연방 순회법원의 특허 재판 및 항소 위원회(PTAB) 항소에서 단어 하나로 확인하는 규칙 36의 사용에 이의를 제기하는 대법원 청원을 지원하는 답변서를 제출했습니다. 사건 번호 24-518은 TCL과 LG 전자를 상대로 하며, 이러한 간단한 확인이 법원 의견을 요구하는 특허법 제144조를 위반한다고 주장합니다.
이 청원은 하버드 로스쿨의 메리 앤 글렌돈 교수와 전 연방 순회법원 판사인 폴 미셸 및 캐슬린 오말리를 포함한 아미치 13명의 지지를 받았습니다. 이 사건은 연방 순회법원이 IPR(인터 파르티스 리뷰) 절차에서 PTAB의 특허 무효화를 확인하기 위해 규칙 36을 사용하는 관행에 초점을 맞추고 있습니다.
응답자(TCL 및 LGE)는 그들의 반대 서면에서 파커비전의 청원의 장점에 대해 이의를 제기하지 않았습니다. 대법원의 결정은 특허 항소 절차에 상당한 영향을 미칠 수 있으며, 미국 특허 시스템에서 더 큰 투명성과 책임을 보장할 수 있습니다.
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR) a déposé un mémoire en réponse soutenant sa pétition auprès de la Cour Suprême, contestant l'utilisation par le Circuit Fédéral de la Règle 36 pour des affirmations en un mot dans les appels du Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). L'affaire, n° 24-518, contre TCL et LG Electronics, soutient que ces brèves affirmations violent la Section 144 de la Loi sur les brevets, qui exige un avis détaillé du tribunal.
La pétition a reçu un soutien substantiel de la part de treize amis dans neuf mémoires, y compris la Professeure Mary Ann Glendon de la Harvard Law School et les anciens juges du Circuit Fédéral Paul Michel et Kathleen O'Malley. L'affaire se concentre sur la pratique du Circuit Fédéral d'utiliser la Règle 36 pour confirmer les invalidations de brevets du PTAB dans les procédures de révision inter partes (IPR).
Les intimés (TCL et LGE) n'ont pas contesté le bien-fondé de la pétition de ParkerVision dans leur mémoire d'opposition. La décision de la Cour Suprême pourrait avoir un impact significatif sur les procédures d'appel en matière de brevets, garantissant potentiellement une plus grande transparence et responsabilité dans le système de brevets américain.
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR) hat ein Antwortschreiben eingereicht, das seine Petition beim Obersten Gerichtshof unterstützt, in der die Verwendung der Regel 36 durch den Bundesberufungsgerichtshof für Ein-Wort-Bestätigungen in Berufungen des Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) angefochten wird. Der Fall, Nr. 24-518, gegen TCL und LG Electronics, argumentiert, dass diese kurzen Bestätigungen gegen Abschnitt 144 des Patentgesetzes verstoßen, der eine detaillierte Gerichtsgutachten verlangt.
Die Petition hat erhebliche Unterstützung von dreizehn Amici in neun Schriftsätzen erhalten, darunter Professorin Mary Ann Glendon von der Harvard Law School und die ehemaligen Richter des Bundesberufungsgerichts Paul Michel und Kathleen O'Malley. Der Fall konzentriert sich auf die Praxis des Bundesberufungsgerichts, Regel 36 zur Bestätigung von PTAB-Patentnichtigkeiten in Verfahren zur inter partes Überprüfung (IPR) zu verwenden.
Die Beklagten (TCL und LGE) haben die Merkmale von ParkerVisions Petition in ihrem Widerspruchsschreiben nicht bestritten. Die Entscheidung des Obersten Gerichtshofs könnte erhebliche Auswirkungen auf die Verfahren zur Berufung von Patenten haben und potenziell mehr Transparenz und Verantwortung im US-Patentsystem gewährleisten.
- Strong support from 13 amici across 9 briefs including prominent legal experts
- Opponents (TCL and LGE) did not dispute petition merits in their opposition brief
- Ongoing legal uncertainty affecting patent rights
- Current PTAB appeal process potentially undermining patent holder protections
The case has garnered widespread support from inventors' groups, patent holders, and other stakeholders in the patent system, with thirteen amici across nine briefs calling for Supreme Court review. Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School was also among the amici, arguing that opinion-writing is an essential check on judicial power.
Former Federal Circuit judges Paul Michel and Kathleen O'Malley have even weighed in, expressly supporting ParkerVision's position. Judge Michel has stated: "The Federal Circuit's regular practice of issuing judgments without opinions in appeals from PTAB reviews contravenes the literal terms of Section 144, which contains no exceptions and warrants immediate Supreme Court scrutiny." And Judge O'Malley has stated that "the ParkerVision case is of particular concern" because the Federal Circuit there used Rule 36 to affirm a PTAB patent invalidation that arose from inter partes review (IPR), an administrative proceeding where "guardrails against unduly depriving a party of property rights break down." "In those cases, the Federal Circuit should provide greater oversight," she explained.
ParkerVision's certiorari briefing also uncovered overlooked historical evidence that reinforces the need for review. The briefing, for example, details that Judge Giles S. Rich, an architect of modern patent law, so strongly opposed rubber-stamp decisions that, in April 1973, he mocked the concept of summary affirmances by drafting a sarcastic "test" ruling questioning whether such decisions met judicial standards. ParkerVision's petition echoes Judge Rich's concerns and demonstrates that Rule 36 contradicts the Federal Circuit's mission to provide opinions in patent-agency appeals.
Further, as ParkerVision's reply brief highlights, the brief in opposition filed by respondents (TCL and LGE) did not dispute the merits of ParkerVision's petition.
"Respondents were right to concede the question presented. Section 144 means what it says," said Amit Vora, an appellate litigator at Kasowitz and lead counsel for ParkerVision. "That statutory concession, coupled with the mounting criticism of the Federal Circuit's Rule 36-ing patent holders who have been deprived of property rights in issued patents through IPRs, demonstrates the need for review. The issue is important and not going away."
The Supreme Court's decision in this case could reshape how patent appeals are handled, ensuring greater transparency, accountability, and due process in the
As Jeffrey Parker, CEO of ParkerVision, put it: "Requiring the court to state its reasons will help ensure accountability, transparency, and accuracy and thereby secure the rights of inventors, patent holders, and innovators—the purpose of
A copy of the reply may be found online here and Messrs. Vora and Parker are available to discuss the petition's implications for inventors and the innovation landscape.
About Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP is a leading national law firm with a core focus on commercial litigation, complemented by exceptionally strong bankruptcy/restructuring and real estate transactional practices. Kasowitz is known for its creative, aggressive litigators and willingness to take on tough cases. The firm has extensive trial experience and is always trial-ready, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in every area of litigation. Kasowitz is committed to pursuing aggressive and innovative approaches to its clients' most challenging legal matters. Headquartered in
About ParkerVision
ParkerVision, Inc. (OTCQB:PRKR) invents, develops, and licenses advanced, proprietary radio-frequency (RF) technologies that empower wireless solution providers to create and market state-of-the-art wireless communication products. ParkerVision is actively involved in multiple patent enforcement actions in the
Contact:
Shannon O'Reilly
212-547-1290
Soreilly@kasowitz.com
View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/parkervision-files-reply-in-us-supreme-court-cert-petition-calling-for-end-to-federal-circuits-use-of-rule-36-in-ptab-appeals-302391876.html
SOURCE Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
FAQ
What is ParkerVision's Supreme Court petition No. 24-518 about?
How many amici briefs support PRKR's Supreme Court petition?
What is the potential impact of ParkerVision's Supreme Court case on patent holders?
Who are the key supporters of ParkerVision's (PRKR) patent appeal case?
