Shore v. Lee

In Shore v. Lee, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB finding without opinion.  Shore’s petition to the Supreme Court asks whether “the Federal Circuit’s affirmance without opinion of the PTO’s rejection of Petitioner’s patent application violate 35 U.S.C. § 144?”  In its first opportunity to support the Federal Circuit’s R.36 jurisprudence, the Department of Justice has passed – instead waiving its right to offer any argument in support.  The Supreme Court will consider the petition later this month.

Wrongly Affirmed Without Opinion: At the Supreme Court

= = = = =

Similarly in Broadband ITV v. Hawaiian Telecom, respondents have waived their right to respond to Broadband’s challenge to quick-look eligibility denials.

Supreme Court: Challenging Quick-Look Eligibility Denials

7 thoughts on “Shore v. Lee

    1. 2.1

      I basically totally disagree with Dowd. As I write in my article, the members of the court must at least mentally form their opinions in order to pass judgment – otherwise the decision is arbitrary and capricious.

  1. 1

    I think a successful USSC cert petition here will have to involve a case where the record below is confusing, where the petitioner has taken a sincere and consistent position on a matter, and where the petitioner has specifically requested the CAFC to resolve the confusion while providing the CAFC with a clear and convincing explanation as to why a Rule 36 decision would do harm to the petitioner. And the CAFC still refuses to do so (by issuing a Rule 36 decision).

    Otherwise … good luck.

    1. 1.1

      I other words, you need your hand held every tiny step of the way and cannot see the cogent legal logic otherwise.

      There really is no need for such a Slam Dunk case in order to understand the legal principles involved.

      But go ahead and be true to the 11 year blight that you are and level some accusations of that which you do.

      It’s right there on your script….

      1. 1.1.1

        The Supreme Court doesn’t take every case presented to it, particularly when the stakes are rather small and, on top of that, the plaintiff is a bit of a l0wlife.


          Great – and totally unrelated to your prior comment and to my comment on your comment.

          Maybe come back to the point going on here…?

Comments are closed.