USA patent courts and appeals
This article describes which bodies handle approval, rejection, and disputes of patent validity in the USA.
 The stages of litigation
- Patent applications are considered at the USPTO by an examiner
- Disputes can be taken to the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI)
- To contest a BPAI decision, you go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)[reference needed]
- When you sue someone for patent infringement, the validity of the patent can be called into question, and this litigation is in a District Court
- To contest the district court's ruling, you go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
- Cases are heard by a "panel" with three judges
- Sometimes cases are heard "en banc, by the entire court:
- This can happen when a party poses a question to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court can send it back to the CAFC for an en banc hearing
- TO BE CHECKED: Can the CAFC also decide for itself to hear a case en banc, for important cases where the CAFC wants to set a clear precedent?
- To contest the CAFC's ruling, you can apply to the Supreme Court (sometimes abbreviated "SCOTUS")
- This is called applying for certiorari
- If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, they will rule on it with the highest authority of the USA
- Alternatively, as mentioned above, the Supreme Court might send the case back to the CAFC for an en banc hearing
- If the Supreme Court denies certiorari, then the CAFC's ruling stands. This does not mean the Supreme Court endorses the CAFC's ruling, but is often interpreted in that way
 Hierarchy and vacating lower rulings
When the Supreme Court gives its opinion on a case, not only does this opinion override the opinion of the lower court, but the Supreme Court can also issue a "grant-vacate-remand order" to nullify certain other rulings of lower courts which may give turn out differently in the light of the Supreme Court's newer ruling.
For example, in the 2009 Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. case the CAFC upheld a patent, saying that it passed the machine-or-transformation test. (The US Supreme Court took the case in 2012 and disagreed.) After tweaking that test in 2010 in the Bilski v. Kappos ruling, the Supreme Court vacated the CAFC's 2009 Mayo ruling and ordered a retrial. (In the retrial, the CAFC reached the same conclusion; the Supreme Court then agreed to hear the Mayo case.)
A Supreme Court ruling not only overrides the preceding CAFC ruling, but the Supreme Court can also vacate other court rulings of lower courts that may
 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
 12(b)(6): motion for quick dismissal
Rule 12(b)(6) can be used by a defendant to file a motion for dismissal.
 Judge's titles
At the ITC: administrative law judge
At the CAFC: Circuit Judge NAME
At the Supreme Court: Justice NAME
 Related pages on en.swpat.org
- http://www.uspto.gov/go/dcom/bpai/index.html - The USPTO's BPAI
- RECAP - an archive of "PACER" documents - this is only a small subset of US court documents, but it's the only publicly available repository
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Wikipedia
- "GPG v. ITC: Federal Circuit Review of ITC Determinations". http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/gpg-v-itc-federal-circuit-review-of-itc-determinations.html. "ITC determinations are subject to review by the Federal Circuit under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows for de novo review of legal determinations and review of factual findings for substantial evidence."
This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see: