United States: Era Of Interference: The Roberts Court’s Take On Federal Circuit Expertise And Patentee Rights

There is no doubt that the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts has taken a much more active role than previous regimes in shaping our nation's patent laws.  The Roberts Court has granted certiorari in a multitude of patent cases and has generally issued decisions that reign in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's perceived autonomy over intellectual property matters while, at the same time, restricting the rights of patentees.

How active has this Court been?  The Federal Circuit formed in 1982 and the Supreme Court decided a total of eight patent cases from 1982 – 2005.  Since Roberts joined the Court in 2005, and including cases to be decided this term, the Court will have heard twenty-one cases involving patent rights in less than ten years! 

Here, we first look back at key patent cases decided by our nation's highest court since Chief Justice Roberts joined in 2006 (including the most recent decisions from April 2014) and then describe the issues set forth in the cases pending in 2014.

Supreme Court Patent Cases in the Roberts Era

No special treatment for the Federal Circuit despite its patent expertise?

The Federal Circuit is unique among the thirteen circuit courts of appeals in that it has nationwide jurisdiction in a variety of subject areas, including patents.  Thus, the Supreme Court does not grant certiorari to resolve splits between the appellate courts.  Instead, the Court has repeatedly issued decisions attempting to bring the Federal Circuit in line with the other appellate courts and reminding it that patent cases should not receive special treatment:

In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), the Court vacated the Federal Circuit's decision and held that a patentee who demonstrates infringement at trial is not automatically entitled to injunctive relief.  Rather, courts should grant injunctive relief in patent cases only if the traditional four-factor test for equitable relief is satisfied.

In MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), the Court reversed the Federal Circuit's decision and held that licensees should be permitted to get out of bad license deals by challenging the validity of the underlying patents.

In Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), the Court again reversed the Federal Circuit, holding that Section 271(f) of the Patent Act, which imposes infringement liability for the unauthorized supply of "components" of a patented invention for "combination" abroad, does not cover foreign duplication of software. 

In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011), the Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit but articulated a stricter "willful blindness" standard for finding liability for induced patent infringement absent proof of actual knowledge of the patent.

In Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843 (2014), the Court reversed the Federal Circuit to hold that the patentee has the burden of proving infringement even in declaratory judgment actions by a licensee in good standing.

In Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014), and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014), the Court took its attack to the Federal Circuit and so-called patent trolls, making it much easier to award sanctions against patent holders that bring meritless suits.  In Octane Fitness, the Court rejected the Federal Circuit's rule that sanctions are appropriate only when a case is "objectively baseless" and "brought in subjective bad faith" and instead found that fees may be awarded in any case that "stands out from others."  Likewise, in Highmark, the Court rejected the Federal Circuit's rule that fee awards are not entitled to deference and must be reviewed de novo.

In Limelight Networks v. Akamai Techs., -- S. Ct. --- (2014), the Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit's recent expansion of the inducement doctrine for method patents to address equitable concerns that a would-be infringer could evade liability by dividing performance of a method patent's steps with another whom the defendant neither directors nor controls.  In doing so, the Court replaced the Federal Circuit's lenient standard for proof of induced infringement with a far more rigid one, blaming any inequitable result on the Federal Circuit's strict "single actor" rule 1 set and perhaps signaling the next Federal Circuit rule to fall.

What is patentable? 

The Roberts Court has likewise taken a keen interest in patentability issues, and has generally restricted patent holder rights.  For example:

In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Court held that "the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws."  The Court criticized the Federal Circuit's "teaching, suggestion and motivation" test for obviousness, instead directing courts to employ "common sense," and making it considerably easier for accused infringers to invalidate patent claims. 

In Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010), the Court rejected the rule that the "machine or transformation" test was the sole test for determining whether business method claims were patentable subject matter, instead encouraging a less rigid approach focused on the idea that patents are "designed to encompass new and unforeseen inventions."

Recently, in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), the Court held that the patent at issue was an unpatentable law of nature and that new patents involving correlations between natural phenomena must do more than simply recite the natural correlation and tell the user to apply it.   

In Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 132 S. Ct. 1794 (2013), the Court found that merely isolating genes in naturally occurring sequences of DNA does not make them patentable; however artificially created cDNA is patent eligible.

In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), the Court unanimously struck down the Federal Circuit's long-standing rule that a claim passes the indefiniteness standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 so long as it is "amenable to construction" and the claim, as construed, is not "insolubly ambiguous." The Supreme Court instead found that a claim is sufficiently definite where it "inform[s] those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty."

In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l., -- S. Ct. – (2014), the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's holding, finding that patents at issue were invalid because the claims were drawn to an abstract idea, and that implementing those claims on a computer was not enough to transform that idea to a patentable invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

This is not to say that the Supreme Court never agrees with the Federal Circuit or never finds in favor of patent holder rights.  The Roberts Court has issued two opinions that affirmed the Federal Circuit and were favorable to patentees.  In Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011), it upheld long-standing Federal Circuit precedent that patent invalidity defenses must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.  Likewise, in Kappos v. Hyatt, 132 S. Ct. 1690 (2012), it held that rejected patent applicants may raise new evidence in district court proceedings, and the courts need not defer to the findings of the USPTO.

Patent Cases Pending Before the Supreme Court

To date, the Roberts Court has reversed the Federal Circuit ten times, vacated its decision four times, affirmed but changed the applicable standard twice, and affirmed four times.  Its rulings have had a negative effect on patent rights fifteen times, and either kept the status quo or have had a positive effect on patent rights five times. For those keeping score, the Federal Circuit's winning percentage is only 20%, and patentees' winning percentage is a slightly better 25%.  

Will that trend continue under the Roberts Court in future sessions? If the current pattern holds, patent holders are not likely to be happy with the outcome of appeals to the Supreme Court as long as Chief Justice Roberts serves as the nation's top arbiter of the law, and the Federal Circuit will continue to be reminded that despite its supposed expertise in patent law, it will not be given any special treatment. 


1. The "single actor" rule was set forth by the Federal Circuit in Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2009.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions