How does Rule 36 affect the development of patent law jurisprudence?
The article provides an interesting discussion on how US Inventor, Inc. (USI) has filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to reconsider its use of Rule 36. USI argues that Rule 36, which allows for one-word affirmances without opinion, hinders the development of patent law, biases cases toward affirmance, and burdens future litigants by not resolving issues thoroughly.
Rule 36 permits the CAFC to affirm lower court decisions without an opinion if the decision has no precedential value and meets specific conditions, potentially impacting the fairness of judicial outcomes.
How does Rule 36 affect the development of patent law jurisprudence?
https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/07/02/us-inventor-urges-cafc-review-implementation-rule-36
Rule 36 permits the CAFC to affirm lower court decisions without an opinion if the decision has no precedential value and meets specific conditions, potentially impacting the fairness of judicial outcomes.
How does Rule 36 affect the development of patent law jurisprudence?
https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/07/02/us-inventor-urges-cafc-review-implementation-rule-36
Comments
Post a Comment