Why would the CAFC, even assuming it could, want to overturn a case in which the Supreme Court affirmed both the judgment and the dominant reasoning of the CAFC? I mean, that would go beyond not caring what the Supreme Court does into active spite.
The idea of a single subject court was a novel experiment in 1982
The CAFC isn't a single subject court, and both of its two immediate predecessors (the United States Court of Claims and the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 1929-1982) were more like single-subject courts than the CAFC is, so, insofar as the CAFC could even remotely be considered by such a court, it wasn't a "novel experiment" in that direction (and Court of Customs and Patent Appeals prior incarnation as the Court of Customs Appeals, 1909-1929, was a single subject court, and until 1914 was a single-subject court with no further avenue of appeal.)
The CAFC was part of an evolution away from narrow-subject courts, not a "novel expirement" to try a "single subject court".
insofar as the CAFC could even remotely be considered by such a court
Before the CAFC, patent appeals went to the regional circuits. Now they all -- every one in the nation -- run to the corrupt CAFC. Even non-patent cases like the case where CAFC ruled in favor of copyrights on APIs can be packaged off the the CAFC instead of regional circuits by including unrelated patent issues.
The regional circuits created a mess with patent law. Wasn't it the 7th circuit that never found a patent to be valid. 3M was justifiably upset about that. If forum shopping is bad now, think how it would be with regional circuit patent law.
Wasn't it the 7th circuit that never found a patent to be valid. 3M was justifiably upset about that. 3M was justifiably upset about that. If forum shopping is bad now, think how it would be with regional circuit patent law.
I started out at the very beginning of the Federal Circuit era. I think you might be thinking of the 8th Circuit (and the District of Minnesota) as implacably hostile to patents. And yes, forum-shopping could be really bad in those days.
Comments
Why would the CAFC, even assuming it could, want to overturn a case in which the Supreme Court affirmed both the judgment and the dominant reasoning of the CAFC? I mean, that would go beyond not caring what the Supreme Court does into active spite.
The CAFC isn't a single subject court, and both of its two immediate predecessors (the United States Court of Claims and the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 1929-1982) were more like single-subject courts than the CAFC is, so, insofar as the CAFC could even remotely be considered by such a court, it wasn't a "novel experiment" in that direction (and Court of Customs and Patent Appeals prior incarnation as the Court of Customs Appeals, 1909-1929, was a single subject court, and until 1914 was a single-subject court with no further avenue of appeal.)
The CAFC was part of an evolution away from narrow-subject courts, not a "novel expirement" to try a "single subject court".
insofar as the CAFC could even remotely be considered by such a court
Before the CAFC, patent appeals went to the regional circuits. Now they all -- every one in the nation -- run to the corrupt CAFC. Even non-patent cases like the case where CAFC ruled in favor of copyrights on APIs can be packaged off the the CAFC instead of regional circuits by including unrelated patent issues.
The regional circuits created a mess with patent law. Wasn't it the 7th circuit that never found a patent to be valid. 3M was justifiably upset about that. If forum shopping is bad now, think how it would be with regional circuit patent law.
I started out at the very beginning of the Federal Circuit era. I think you might be thinking of the 8th Circuit (and the District of Minnesota) as implacably hostile to patents. And yes, forum-shopping could be really bad in those days.
The 7th Circuit is also not very generous to debtors in bankruptcy practice. Yet the world goes on. This variation isn't a bad thing, IMHO.
Bankruptcy has bankruptcy district courts.
Yes, but they're Article I courts where everything is reviewable by a generalist District Judge.