Supreme Court's 2024-2025 Patent Docket Features 15 Cases Challenging Federal Circuit Practices and Core Patent Doctrines

The Supreme Court’s patent docket for the 2024-2025 term has grown to include fifteen pending cases that could reshape multiple facets of patent law. At the core of this term is a cluster of petitions challenging the Federal Circuit’s procedural practices, particularly its frequent use of Rule 36 summary affirmances. Five separate petitions—ParkerVision, Island IP, ATOS, Audio Evolution Diagnostics, and Converter Manufacturing—contend that the Federal Circuit’s reliance on one-word affirmances undermines transparency, violates statutory mandates for reasoned decision-making, and warrants Supreme Court supervision.

This procedural critique extends beyond Rule 36 to broader questions about adjudication standards in patent cases. Three petitions—BBiTV, Island IP, and Brumfield—challenge the Federal Circuit’s approach to resolving factual disputes at summary judgment, especially in patent eligibility determinations. Impact Engine and Audio Evolution Diagnostics also press challenges to the patent eligibility framework, with Audio Evolution specifically questioning whether patents on medical diagnostic machines should be deemed abstract ideas under the Alice/Mayo test.

Beyond eligibility, two cases raise substantive patent law issues. Converter Manufacturing questions the Federal Circuit’s long-standing presumption that prior art references are enabling. Celanese addresses the scope of the on-sale bar under the America Invents Act, focusing on secret processes and their treatment under the statute.

Complementing these substantive challenges are cases addressing remedial and procedural issues. DISH Network questions attorney fee liability and costs related to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. Provisur challenges the Federal Circuit’s standard of review for jury findings on willfulness.

The following list categorizes key pending cases, with their docket numbers and focal issues:

- Audio Evolution Diagnostics v. United States (No. 24-806): Challenges Federal Circuit’s use of Rule 36 summary affirmances in patent eligibility determinations; also questions eligibility of medical diagnostic machine patents.

- Impact Engine v. Google (No. 24-836): Challenges the patent eligibility framework and preemption analysis.

- Island IP v. TD Ameritrade (No. 24-461): Challenges eligibility determinations at summary judgment.

- Brumfield v. IBG (No. 24-764): Challenges eligibility determinations for graphical user interface (GUI) patents at summary judgment.

- Converter Manufacturing v. Tekni-Plex (No. 24-866): Questions the presumption that prior art references are enabling.

- Lighting Defense v. SnapRays (No. 24-524): Addresses personal jurisdiction issues in e-commerce patent disputes.

- Peterson v. Minerva (No. 24-712): Concerns deference to arbitration awards in patent cases.

- Hikma v. Amarin (No. 24A652): May address induced infringement related to generic drug “skinny labels.”

These cases collectively represent a significant opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify and potentially recalibrate key procedural and substantive doctrines in patent law. The challenges to Rule 36 summary affirmances and summary judgment eligibility rulings highlight concerns about transparency and fairness in appellate review. Meanwhile, the substantive issues regarding prior art enablement and the on-sale bar could affect patent validity standards nationwide.

As the Court considers these petitions, patent practitioners and stakeholders should monitor developments closely. The outcomes could influence litigation strategies, patent prosecution, and the broader landscape of patent enforcement and defense in the United States.