On June 17th, 2024, Island Intellectual Property LLC (“Island”) filed a Combined Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc in Island Intellectual Property LLC v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Nos. 2023-1318, -1441. This case involves the failure of the District Court to provide a reasoned decision in granting summary judgment of patent ineligibility in an infringement case.

The Magistrate Judge invalidated Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,509,286 (“’286 Patent”) with a cursory analysis on summary judgment, without considering the over 1,400 pages of evidence supporting the unconventional aspects of the claim. The District Court adopted this report, failing to provide a proper analysis of the evidence presented by Island.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit also failed to address these deficiencies, issuing a simple order stating “affirmed” without further explanation. This lack of reasoned decisions in patent cases deviates from the norms of civil procedure, highlighting the need for proper analysis at both the District Court and appellate levels.

The Petition raises two legal issues regarding the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and the need for a reasoned analysis under Step 2 of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l. Stakeholders are encouraged to support the Petition and address these important issues.

The ’286 Patent involves cash deposit sweep and insured deposit financial technology, which has been successful in the industry. Despite evidence supporting the patent’s inventive concept, the District Court and Federal Circuit failed to provide adequate reasoning for their decisions.

The lack of explanation from the Federal Circuit Panel under Rule 36 raises concerns about the transparency and fairness of the appellate process. Other Circuits require explanations for decisions, highlighting the need for clarity in judicial rulings.

In conclusion, the Federal Circuit’s reliance on Rule 36 summary affirmances without proper reasoning is unfair to parties involved and undermines the principles of justice. It is essential for the Court to reassess its practices and ensure a more transparent and equitable appellate process. Failure to address these concerns may lead to corrective action by the Supreme Court in the future.