by Dennis Crouch
The Supreme Court's 2024-2025 patent docket has a growing number of cases awaiting consideration. I count fifteen pending cases that could reshape multiple facets of patent law. At the heart of this term lies a set of challenges to the Federal Circuit's Rule 36 summary affirmance practice, with five separate petitions (ParkerVision, Island IP, ATOS, Audio Evolution Diagnostics and Converter Manufacturing) arguing that the court's frequent use of one-word affirmances undermines transparency and violates statutory requirements for reasoned decision-making and demands supervision from the Supreme Court. This procedural theme extends beyond Rule 36 to encompass broader questions about how patent cases should be adjudicated, with three petitions (BBiTV, Island IP, and Brumfield) challenging the Federal Circuit's approach to resolving factual disputes at summary judgment, particularly in patent eligibility cases. Impact Engine and Audio Evolution Diagnostics also challenge the eligibility framework, with Audio Evolution specifically questioning whether medical diagnostic machine patents should be considered abstract ideas under Alice/Mayo.
Two cases raise what I see as core substantive patent law issues outside of eligibility:
- Converter Manufacturing questions the court's long-standing approach to prior art enablement.
- Celanese raises questions the the scope of the on-sale bar under the America Invents Act, particularly for secret processes.
These substantive challenges are complemented by cases addressing remedial issues, including DISH Network's questions about attorney fee liability and IPR-related costs, and Provisur's challenge to the Federal Circuit's review of jury willfulness findings.
The following list loosely categorizes the pending cases and you'll find details about each via the hyperlink.
Federal Circuit Rule 36 Challenges
- ParkerVision v. TCL (No. 24-518) - Rule 36 summary affirmances in PTAB appeals
- Island IP v. TD Ameritrade (No. 24-461) - Rule 36 practice and transparency
- Audio Evolution v. United States (No. 24-806) - Rule 36 use in eligibility determinations
- Converter v. Tekni-Plex (No. 24-866) - Rule 36 in prior art enablement context
- ATOS v. Allstate (No. 24A777) - Matches ParkerVision.
Patent Eligibility Cases
- Impact Engine v. Google (No. 24-836) - Eligibility framework and preemption analysis
- Audio Evolution v. United States (No. 24-806) - Eligibility of medical diagnostic "machine" patents
- Island IP v. TD Ameritrade (No. 24-461) - Eligibility determinations at summary judgment
- Brumfield v. IBG (No. 24-764) - Eligibility determinations for GUI patents at summary judgment
- BBiTV v. Amazon (No. 24-827) - Eligibility determinations at summary judgment
Other Core Patent Law Issues
- Celanese v. ITC (No. 24-635) - AIA on-sale bar for secret processes
- Converter v. Tekni-Plex (No. 24-866) - Presumption that prior art references are enabling
Additional Procedural & Remedial Issues
- DISH v. Dragon IP (No. 24-726) - Attorney fee liability and IPR-related costs
- Provisur v. Weber (No. 24-723) - Appellate review of jury willfulness findings
- Lighting Defense v. SnapRays (No. 24-524) - Personal jurisdiction in e-commerce patent disputes
- Peterson v. Minerva (No. 24-712) - Deference to arbitration awards in patent context
- Koss v. Bose (No. 24A577) - Issue preclusion in parallel patent litigation
- Brumfield v. IBG (No. 24-764) - Standards for Rule 60(b)(3) relief from judgment
Pending/Potential Filings
- Hikma v. Amarin (No. 24A652) - May address induced infringement for generic drug "skinny labels"