Anyone who read Sigram Schindler’s petition for writ of certiorari would have walked away confused. To say that the petition makes little sense is perhaps over stating its value. The question presented by Schindler was as follows:
Does the US Constitution, in legal decisions based on 35 USC §§ 101/102/103/112, require instantly avoiding the inevitable legal errors in construing incomplete and vague classical claim constructions – especially for “emerging technology claim(ed invention)s, ET CIs” – by construing for them the complete/concise refined claim constructions of the Supreme Court’s KSR/Bilski/Mayo/Myriad/Biosig/Alice line of unanimous precedents framework, or does the US Constitution for such decisions entitle any public institution to refrain, for ET CIs, for a time it feels feasible, from proceeding as these Supreme Court precedents require – or meeting its requirements just by some lip-service – and in the meantime to construe incomplete classical claim constructions, notwithstanding their implied legal errors?”
The Supreme Court has now – as expected – denied the petition. However, the court took a major step further — ordering Schindler’s Supreme Court attorney to “show cause … why he should not be sanctioned”:
D-2827 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF HOWARD NEIL SHIPLEY
Howard Neil Shipley, of Washington, D.C., is ordered to show cause, within 40 days, why he should not be sanctioned for his conduct as a member of the Bar of this Court in connection with the petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 14-424, Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft MBH v. Lee.
The brief was filed by Howard Shipley of the Foley firm along with his partner George Quillen. Although I do not know, I suspect that the Foley firm agreed to file the brief as drafted by Dr. Schindler and without providing any substantive input or editing.
This case is unlikely to help shift the Supreme Court’s perspective on the Federal Circuit and the current state of patent law doctrine.