eBAY V. MerceXchange as a Sign of Things to Come: Is the Supreme Court Still Reluctant to Hear Patent Cases?

By Huang, Peter O. | Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, Fall 2006 | Go to article overview

eBAY V. MerceXchange as a Sign of Things to Come: Is the Supreme Court Still Reluctant to Hear Patent Cases?


Huang, Peter O., Journal of Appellate Practice and Process


I. INTRODUCTION

Several years ago, I wrote a short practice note for this journal, (1) suggesting in it that the United States Supreme Court's then-recent decision in The Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. (2) indicated that appellate litigators should consider whether the Federal Circuit remained the only--or indeed the best--option for appeals in cases that include patent claims. I write again for similar reasons: to put appellate lawyers on notice that patent appeals appear more likely to end up in the Supreme Court today than has been the case for almost a generation.

On May 15, 2006, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C., vacating and remanding a decision from the Federal Circuit that addressed requests for injunctions in patent cases. (3) This case was carefully watched by the patent bar, for the issues it involved were of significant importance to both patent lawyers and their clients. But the decision is also of interest to every appellate lawyer who might eventually handle an appeal in a patent case.

As I explain in this note, eBay is of particular concern to appellate lawyers because it may mark a change in the Supreme Court's historical interaction with the Federal Circuit. For many years, the Supreme Court regularly deferred to the Federal Circuit in patent cases, and indeed, that court was established in part to specialize in patent appeals. (4) However, eBay is among the latest, and it is perhaps the most controversial, in a string of recent decisions in which the Supreme Court has reversed or remanded patent decisions from the Federal Circuit. (5)

Is eBay representative of a fundamental change in the Supreme Court's relationship with the Federal Circuit in patent cases, or is it an anomaly? Only time will tell, but eBay tells us at least that times may be changing.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Two Decades of Supreme Court Deference to the Federal Circuit

When Congress created the Federal Circuit in 1982, it gave the new court nationwide appellate jurisdiction over patent appeals. (6) For the next two decades, the Supreme Court seemed almost to have delegated final review of patent cases to the Federal Circuit, "render[ing] itself well nigh invisible in modern substantive patent law." (7) Indeed, the Federal Circuit had by 2001 "become the de facto supreme court of patents," (8) for, as one commentator put it, "[i]n those rare patent cases when the real Supreme Court has materialized, the Court has left behind a largely uninspiring jurisprudence. When winnowed down to those cases dealing directly with substantive patent issues, the jurisprudence is paltry indeed." (9)

The Supreme Court decided only ten patent cases between 1982 and 2000, (10) an average of approximately one decision every two years. Furthermore, as Professor Janis's 2001 analysis indicates, only three of those cases involved "substantive" patent issues, an average of approximately one substantive patent case on the Supreme Court's docket every six years. (11) In the relatively recent past, then, it was fair to say that the Supreme Court appeared remarkably reluctant to review patent cases. The Court seemed content instead to stand aside and allow the Federal Circuit to be the final arbiter of most patent matters.

B. The Waning of the Supreme Court's Deference to the Federal Circuit

By 2003 there were suggestions of a shift in the Supreme Court's attitude towards the Federal Circuit. One observer noted that the Court's "initial deference to the Federal Circuit" had by then "been replaced by a more critical view of the Federal Circuit's decisions and its decision-making processes," (12) and applauded the emergence of the trend, asserting that the Court had "correctly abandoned its deferential mindset toward the Federal Circuit." (13) The Supreme Court's track record in patent cases in the years since 2001 seems to support that analysis. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

eBAY V. MerceXchange as a Sign of Things to Come: Is the Supreme Court Still Reluctant to Hear Patent Cases?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.