ParkerVision Files Reply in U.S. Supreme Court Cert. Petition Calling for End to Federal Circuit's Use of Rule 36 in PTAB Appeals
Rhea-AI Summary
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR) has filed a reply brief supporting its Supreme Court petition challenging the Federal Circuit's use of Rule 36 one-word affirmances in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) appeals. The case, No. 24-518, against TCL and LG Electronics, argues that these brief affirmances violate Section 144 of the Patent Act, which requires a detailed court opinion.
The petition has received substantial support from thirteen amici across nine briefs, including Harvard Law School's Professor Mary Ann Glendon and former Federal Circuit judges Paul Michel and Kathleen O'Malley. The case focuses on the Federal Circuit's practice of using Rule 36 to affirm PTAB patent invalidations in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
The respondents (TCL and LGE) did not dispute the merits of ParkerVision's petition in their opposition brief. The Supreme Court's decision could significantly impact patent appeal procedures, potentially ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the U.S. patent system.
Positive
- Strong support from 13 amici across 9 briefs including prominent legal experts
- Opponents (TCL and LGE) did not dispute petition merits in their opposition brief
Negative
- Ongoing legal uncertainty affecting patent rights
- Current PTAB appeal process potentially undermining patent holder protections
News Market Reaction 1 Alert
On the day this news was published, PRKR declined 0.67%, reflecting a mild negative market reaction.
Data tracked by StockTitan Argus on the day of publication.
The case has garnered widespread support from inventors' groups, patent holders, and other stakeholders in the patent system, with thirteen amici across nine briefs calling for Supreme Court review. Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School was also among the amici, arguing that opinion-writing is an essential check on judicial power.
Former Federal Circuit judges Paul Michel and Kathleen O'Malley have even weighed in, expressly supporting ParkerVision's position. Judge Michel has stated: "The Federal Circuit's regular practice of issuing judgments without opinions in appeals from PTAB reviews contravenes the literal terms of Section 144, which contains no exceptions and warrants immediate Supreme Court scrutiny." And Judge O'Malley has stated that "the ParkerVision case is of particular concern" because the Federal Circuit there used Rule 36 to affirm a PTAB patent invalidation that arose from inter partes review (IPR), an administrative proceeding where "guardrails against unduly depriving a party of property rights break down." "In those cases, the Federal Circuit should provide greater oversight," she explained.
ParkerVision's certiorari briefing also uncovered overlooked historical evidence that reinforces the need for review. The briefing, for example, details that Judge Giles S. Rich, an architect of modern patent law, so strongly opposed rubber-stamp decisions that, in April 1973, he mocked the concept of summary affirmances by drafting a sarcastic "test" ruling questioning whether such decisions met judicial standards. ParkerVision's petition echoes Judge Rich's concerns and demonstrates that Rule 36 contradicts the Federal Circuit's mission to provide opinions in patent-agency appeals.
Further, as ParkerVision's reply brief highlights, the brief in opposition filed by respondents (TCL and LGE) did not dispute the merits of ParkerVision's petition.
"Respondents were right to concede the question presented. Section 144 means what it says," said Amit Vora, an appellate litigator at Kasowitz and lead counsel for ParkerVision. "That statutory concession, coupled with the mounting criticism of the Federal Circuit's Rule 36-ing patent holders who have been deprived of property rights in issued patents through IPRs, demonstrates the need for review. The issue is important and not going away."
The Supreme Court's decision in this case could reshape how patent appeals are handled, ensuring greater transparency, accountability, and due process in the
As Jeffrey Parker, CEO of ParkerVision, put it: "Requiring the court to state its reasons will help ensure accountability, transparency, and accuracy and thereby secure the rights of inventors, patent holders, and innovators—the purpose of
A copy of the reply may be found online here and Messrs. Vora and Parker are available to discuss the petition's implications for inventors and the innovation landscape.
About Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP is a leading national law firm with a core focus on commercial litigation, complemented by exceptionally strong bankruptcy/restructuring and real estate transactional practices. Kasowitz is known for its creative, aggressive litigators and willingness to take on tough cases. The firm has extensive trial experience and is always trial-ready, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in every area of litigation. Kasowitz is committed to pursuing aggressive and innovative approaches to its clients' most challenging legal matters. Headquartered in
About ParkerVision
ParkerVision, Inc. (OTCQB:PRKR) invents, develops, and licenses advanced, proprietary radio-frequency (RF) technologies that empower wireless solution providers to create and market state-of-the-art wireless communication products. ParkerVision is actively involved in multiple patent enforcement actions in the
Contact:
Shannon O'Reilly
212-547-1290
Soreilly@kasowitz.com
View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/parkervision-files-reply-in-us-supreme-court-cert-petition-calling-for-end-to-federal-circuits-use-of-rule-36-in-ptab-appeals-302391876.html
SOURCE Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
FAQ
What is ParkerVision's Supreme Court petition No. 24-518 about?
How many amici briefs support PRKR's Supreme Court petition?
What is the potential impact of ParkerVision's Supreme Court case on patent holders?
Who are the key supporters of ParkerVision's (PRKR) patent appeal case?
