By Jason Rantanen
Last week I posted data about the CAFC's use of Rule 36 summary orders for the past several years, and suggested that there appears to be a notable uptick in the court's use of Rule 36 for patent infringement appeals this year. Several folks commented that because there are frequently fewer judges sitting during the summer months, it may be possible that most Rule 36 dispositions occur during the early months of the financial year. As a result, the linear projection I used for 2011 overpredicted the number of Rule 36 dispositions for the year.
To examine this suggestion, I conducted the same search as before, but limited the time range to the identical period as for 2011: October 1 – February 14. Fully expecting that the suggestion was correct, I was surprised by the results. Over the 12 years that I had examined the number of hits were almost exactly what would be expected from a linear prediction: 516 predicted vs. 513 actual. Looking at the last five years produced essentially the same result: 247 predicted vs. 236 actual, a ratio of 1.05 predicted : actual. Applying this value, along with a more appropriate multiplier than I originally used (12/5 as opposed to 24/9, since virtually all Rule 36 orders will come in the first half of the month), still produces a prediction of 89 Rule 36 dispositions this year – far exceeding the previous highest total of 64 (2007).
Below is a chart showing the number of Rule 36 dispositions during only the first four and a half months of the financial year.
A word of caution: Any estimates of total Rule 36 dispositions for the year are still highly speculative, and I would avoid reading too much into this data. Nor do I think it wise to try to ferret out reasons for the apparent spike in Rule 36 dispositions at this point – it's just far too early. Still, the data does suggest that it might be a good idea to keep an eye on the court's use of Rule 36 dispositions, and it would be an interesting subject to examine if a long term trend does become apparent.
And what’s even more scary is that you imply that you are learning from those that you do not criticize – My advice for you would be to stop learning as fast as possible.
Just like Momma – always yapping.
As you observe, I am generous in my observations, while you, you seem very particular – hmmmmm.
Momma always said that you can’t learn if you’re always yapping.
If I were cy nical, I would take the “sprinkle” comment as a suggestion that you are but one of a hoard of sockpuppets.
How many are you?
That’s if I were cy nical, that is.
OOOOh, I loves me a good sockpuppet mystery conspiracy theory.
My observation was along the lines of your selectivity of your sprinkling. Alan’s comment is not the only one that speaks for itself. As you observe, I am generous in my observations, while you, you seem very particular – hmmmmm.
Funny, Cy how ya always find a way not to bicker with the plain loser comments like Alan’s that began this thread…
Alan’s comment speaks for itself. Besides, you’re the one who has been appointed to sprinkle golden observations on every topic. I’m just here to learn. Like Maxie.
Yep – this gotta be Cy – the king O pointless bickering.
Funny, Cy how ya always find a way not to bicker with the plain loser comments like Alan’s that began this thread…
We be talking what – about 200 total cases here over twelve years and this “uptick” be because of business method and software patents?
I mean shht – this be worse than Ned-O without his meds for a month.
And 6 – no one brings the chuckles like you for showin how shht-dmmb they be. Using an adjective to possess? An adjective? lulzapstupita galore.
I just loves me a new(?) sockpuppet mystery conspiracy theory. Now Anon is NAL too. Or was he already?
She. And yes.
And what exactly are these real matters of law that be raging all about? The relative frequency of Rule 36 dispositions at the Federal Circuit?
I’m pretty sure this particular segment of Patently-O is reserved for pointless bickering.
NAL can’t just come up in my Patentlyo and use jumping to a conclusion as a gerund phrase. I won’t allow it. Therefore, her usage of your is still improper. Besides, you can’t possess a gerund phrase anyway, even using an adjective.
It’s because you lawltards are a hivemind.
ecdy,
Ya might want to stay away from Cy’s “points” – ya never know where they have been.
lulz 6 – two people postin on your “correctness” at the same time.
Hmmmm, maybe my pal Cy is Anon – Ohhh, the mystery!
Ohhh – Would this be you Cy? It has the trappings of your smelly pointy sticks and an inconsequential matter on these here boards while real matters of law be raging all about (so like you to delve in the nits).
I just loves me a new(?) sockpuppet mystery conspiracy theory. Now Anon is NAL too. Or was he already? I forget and Iza don’t have a scorecard of everyone you done accuse.
I note that you took the time to point out your incorrect understanding of “whose” jumping – as in ownership – as opposed to the contraction which would signify an action.
Try to read and understand the entire sentence before you post a “correction” that only makes you look like the fool.
Irony and context with this one…
I note that you took the time to italicize “your” when the word you were looking for was “you’re”.
I note that you’re wrong, and NAL’s usage is just fine. “Jumping to a conclusion” is used in the sentence as a gerund phrase, and is thus a noun. “Your” is properly used as a possessive adjective.
I note that you took the time to italicize “your” when the word you were looking for was “you’re”.
Almost none. R36 is used almost exclusively in argued cases. Pro ses usually don’t argue unless they’re lawyers.
Martin Reiffin is the rare exception — one who does patent appeals pro se and who does the arguments.
A more typical pro se patent appeal will get submitted on the briefs and get an opinion. See, e.g.,
link to cafc.uscourts.gov
So what fraction of the Rule 36 dispositions are pro se, as was Reiffin?
Example A:
Today’s CAFC decision in Reiffin v. Microsoft
And how are my comments even comparable to Alan McDonald’s?
The use of statistics is hardly uninformed squawking, and I made no value judgments as to the content of the Rule 36 motions.
Alan McDonald’s views have been expressed before and my comment on his jumping to a particular conclusion is hardly uninformed. On the other hand, your jumping to a conclusion that my comments are uninformed is itself uninformed. Thus, the irony of your statement is present, but not likely in the context you meant it to be.
ironic… uninformed squawking followed by accusing another commenter of the same.
So, what’s the point of all this again?
“and I would avoid reading too much into this data.”
Even reading an “almost exactly what would be expected from a linear prediction” is reading too much – Your data sizes are much too small to apply “linearizing” as the delta from reality to a linear fit would engulf the value of the data itself.
Alan McDonald,
Do you have this data? Are you making an informed comment, or is your comment completely baseless and more indicative of your political beliefs? With Bilski being decided as it was, it appears that your projections of a reason smacks of sour grapes.
This one’s easy.
More junk business method and software patents are getting to the CAFC and they are giving them the treatment they earned.
Comments are closed.