Who's at the Helm? The Federal Circuit's Rule of Deference and the Systemic Absence of Controlling Precedent in Matters of Patent Litigation Procedure

American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, 2009

New England Law | Boston Research Paper

46 Pages Posted: 28 Mar 2013  

Peter J. Karol

New England Law | Boston

Date Written: January 1, 2009

Abstract

This article considers the Federal Circuit’s rule of deference to the law of the regional circuits in matters of procedure as that rule approaches its twenty-fifth anniversary. Using the recent Bell Atlantic v. Twombly pleading case as an illustration, the article observes that the structure of the current appellate review scheme creates a systemic absence of controlling precedent relating to patent litigation procedure. Moreover, the arguments usually advanced for the rule’s existence, including efficiency gains and legislative history, are doubtful. As prior scholarship has shown, the rule is not a natural byproduct of the appellate structure created by Congress when it passed the Federal Circuit’s founding legislation, but rather a notable exception to the principal of competence underlying the federal appellate system. When properly situated as an exception to the norm, the burdens created by the rule ultimately outweigh the benefits. The rule of deference should thus never have been adopted, and should be overturned.

Keywords: rule of deference, patent litigation, Federal Circuit

Suggested Citation

Karol, Peter J., Who's at the Helm? The Federal Circuit's Rule of Deference and the Systemic Absence of Controlling Precedent in Matters of Patent Litigation Procedure (January 1, 2009). American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, 2009; New England Law | Boston Research Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2237538

Peter J. Karol (Contact Author)

New England Law | Boston ( email )

154 Stuart St.
Boston, MA 02116
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
8
Abstract Views
214