InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

Should you fear supreme courts?

James Nurton

Supreme Court - 2 Court of Appeal - 0. That’s the result so far since the UK Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the ultimate arbiter of patent cases in the country

Lord NeubergerFollowing the surprising decision in 2011 to overturn two lower court rulings by specialist judges in the HGS v Eli Lilly case, yesterday the Supreme Court ruled in Schütz v Werit: the five judges said that the first instance court and the Court of Appeal were both wrong – but the Court of Appeal was more wrong. The decision, on what constitutes “making” an invention, was overturned. With at least two more patent cases heading to the UK Supreme Court this year, does this bode ill for consistency and predictability in litigation?

It is the oft-voiced opinion of Chief Judge Rader of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that supreme courts don’t understand IP and their meddling hinders innovation. (His view might be coloured by the numerous reversals the Federal Circuit has suffered at the hands of the US Supreme Court in recent years, though I’m sure he would deny that.) I know many European practitioners share similar views about the non-specialist judges at the Court of Justice of the EU: that’s why there has been so much fuss about keeping Luxembourg as far away from the unified patent court as possible.

The situation with the UK Supreme Court (left) is different in a couple of respects. First, the author of both opinions is Lord Neuberger (above), who used to be a patents judge and is respected for his specialist knowledge. Second, neither of the two decisions could be interpreted as the Supreme Court curbing the patent enthusiasm of the lower courts (as you might characterise the US Supreme Court-Federal Circuit tensions). In fact, in the HGS case, the five Supreme Court judges actually felt that the lower judges had been too strict in interpreting industrial application. And even though the Schütz case might limit some patent rights, I suspect most practitioners will welcome its common-sense approach.

But in the bigger picture there is clearly a feeling among some judges at the highest level that they need to rein in their IP-specialist inferiors, particularly the more eccentric opinions. Hence the concerns voiced in the US about the Federal Circuit becoming a so-called caste of priests, focused on the patent detail but not the overall policy. In some cases supreme courts may even see patent-specialist judges as being like prison wardens who have spent a bit too much time with the unruly inmates – not just in court but socially and on the conference circuit too.

Given the recent record of Supreme Court reversals in both the US and UK, therefore, I think I would be just a little bit worried if I were defending the next case to come before either of them.


Article Comments

I guess it may depend on the nature of the tribunal being over-turned. In Schutz v Werit the judgment of Floyd J, an experienced patent judge, was to some extent re-instated - it was the slightly eccentric finding of the Court of Appeal which was over-turned. We may get a clearer picture when the next IP case passes through the Supreme Court at the end of April and the controversial Unilin decision is considered anew.

Gordon Harris Mar 14, 2013

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

IP-related blogs

1709 Copyright Blog


AIA blog

Art and Artifice

China IPR

Class 99

Domain Incite

FOSS Patents

Green Patent Blog


IP CloseUp

IP Dragon

IP finance

IP Kat

IP Komodo

IP tango

IP Watchdog


MARQUES Class 46

Orange Book Blog

Patent Baristas



SPC Blog

Spicy IP

The Trademark Blog

The TTABlog