Chestnut Hill Sound, Inc. has filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether the Federal Circuit’s disparate practice with respect to issuing Rule 36 decisions for losing patent owner-appellants versus losing petitioner-appellants is constitutional. The petition includes statistics demonstrating that patent owner-appellants are three times more likely to receive a Rule 36 judgment than petitioner-appellants. Chestnut Hill’s petition cites statistics on the number of Rule 36 decisions being issued, which come from Larry Sandell’s article, What Statistical Analysis Reveals About Winning IPR Appeals, LAW 360 (August 8, 2019, 5: 22 PM). A footnote in the petition explains that the likelihood of patent owner-appellants receiving a Rule 36 affirmance is actually closer to 3.6 than 3. “Since a losing Patent Owner- Appellant has a 66% chance of receiving a Rule 36 opinion, and a losing Petitioner- Appellant has an 18% chance of receiving a Rule 36 opinion, a Patent Owner- Appellant is 3.6 times as likely to receive a one- word affirmation than a Petitioner- Appellant,” says the petition.
Recent Posts
- Patent Filings Roundup: Slow Week in PTAB and District Court, Ideahub Subsidiary Challenges Instituted; Patent Armory Continues the Offensive
- Timberland Loses Fourth Circuit Bid to Protect Trade Dress for Iconic Boots
- USPTO Proposes Making Director Review Process Official
- Evolving IP: The Innovation Crossroads
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 12: Bill to Rein in GAI Introduced; Amazon Owes Tech Rival $525 Million for Patent Infringement; USPTO Issues Guidance on the Use of AI for Filings