Requirement to Issue Opinions

by Dennis Crouch

New petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in Security People, Inc. v. Ojmar US LLC (17-1443).

Question by the patentee Security People presented:

Whether the Federal Circuit’s issuance of Rule 36 judgments without opinions for the disposition of appeals from the Patent and Trademark Office violates 35 U.S.C. § 144’s requirement that the Federal Circuit “shall issue” its “mandate and opinion” for such appeals.

[Read the Complaint]. The question here stems from my 2017 article arguing that R.36 judgments are improper when issued in appeals from PTO decisions.  The question is also the same as that asked in a number of still pending petitions for writ of certiorari:

  • Celgard, LLC v. Lancu (No. 16-1526)
  • C-Cation Tech., LLC v. Arris Group, Inc., et al. (No. 17-617)
  • Integrated Claims Sys., LLC v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas Ins. Co., et al. (No. 17-330)
  • Stambler v. Mastercard International Inc. (No. 17-1140) (question #2).

In Security People, the underlying Inter Partes Review involves a challenge to Claim 4 of Petitioner’s U.S. Patent No. 6,655,180 covering a “locker lock with adjustable bolt.”  The Board found the claim invalid as obvious based upon the combination of two prior art references. 

2 thoughts on “Requirement to Issue Opinions

Comments are closed.