The Supreme Court had a busy term, particularly with regard to patent cases, and especially in an effort to provide much needed guidance to the divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari in six patent cases, likely the largest number of patent cases the court has ever heard in one term. Each of these cases was decided unanimously, resulting in five reversals of the Federal Circuit. The court’s single affirmance, Alice v. CLS Bank, upheld the Federal Circuit’s outcome, but the Supreme Court’s concise opinion and clear reasoning stand in stark contrast to the Federal Circuit’s struggle with the case, which had resulted in seven separate opinions.1
Some commentators, including John M. Golden in “The Supreme Court as ‘Prime Percolator,’” have suggested previously that the Supreme Court can serve to stimulate dialogue within the Federal Circuit to compensate for the centralized review process of patent appeals.2 Whereas in non-patent cases, the law can “percolate” among the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court can eventually resolve such circuit splits, the Federal Circuit is the sole court of appeals for patent cases, theoretically leading to less doctrinal divide and percolation.
