Supreme Court Overturns Festo Decision

An anonymous submitter wrote: "On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Festo v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki upholding the patent law "doctrine of equivalents" which says that patents cover insubstantial variations of a claimed invention. Previously, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled that the doctrine of equivalents did not apply where the patentee had made ANY changes to his claims during the application process. This week, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that changes made during the application process must be examined individually to see whether they gave up coverage of a particular accused device." Another submitter sent in this good analysis of the decision. Patents are a boring subject, but in general: the Appeals Court's decision in this particular case would have had the effect of making nearly all patents less broad and more specific. The Supreme Court noted the business disruption this would cause, and they are undoubtedly correct about that, but I can't help feeling that our legal system just missed an opportunity to reign in patent abuse.

Comments

Re:Not as bad as all that...

[Royster]

More generally, the court is almost unaccountable for decisions that it makes, since the other portions of the government are constrained from reigning in the court (both practically and legally.) Basically, the senate has to pass an amendment to the constitution to change what the courts can do. This will not happen for a LONG time, if ever, since there is a huge hesitation about the idea of changing the rules that the founding fathers created.

The ability to amend the Constitution *is* a constraint on Judicial power.

Impeachment is another restraint.

FDR threatened to increase the size of the court (the number of justices on the Supreme Court is not specified in the Constitution.) if they didn't stop interfering with his efforts to end the Depression. Over the long run, the power to name justices can and does influence the decisions of SCOTUS. Reagan & Bush has a huge effect on the Court and its direction through the power of nomination.

In another message you asked for a justification in law of the Judiciary's ability to declare a law unconstitutional. That justification is found in the precedent you cite above -- Marbury v. Madison. If Congress and/or the President disagreed with this ruling, they can nominate and confirm justices who don't hold that position or they can pass an Amendment.

The Constitution have been amended 26 times. That this issue hasn't been addressed means that people are comfortable with this power of the Judiciary.