Justices Deny Patent Review Despite Judge Fitness Question

The US Supreme Court declined to rehear an inventor’s technology patent appeal Monday, shooting down his argument that Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman’s disputed fitness to remain on the bench necessitates a second look at his claims.

The justices’ order shuts down an attempt to use the investigation into the 95-year-old jurist’s conduct to question the soundness of recent decisions she has participated in.

Earlier this year, Franz Wakefield asked the high court to consider questions including “whether The Federal Circuit can affirm, by Rule 36, invalidation of a software patent” when the patent’s prosecution history “discloses clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.”

Wakefield’s company, CoolTVNetwork.com, originally accused tech companies—including Blackboard Inc., Meta Platforms Inc., and Snap Inc.—of infringing a patent for embedding clickable hyperlinks in videos. Then-Delaware federal Judge Leonard P. Stark knocked out the patent early in the cases, finding its language was vague. A Federal Circuit panel, which included Newman, then affirmed those rulings via Rule 36.

Wakefield asked the court to reconsider the case in late May, after an internal probe into Newman’s lifetime appointment became public. As Newman’s alleged health issues spanned the July 2022 oral argument session for Wakefield’s case, “his appeal—hearing, deliberation process, and ruling, was succumb to an unfair forum” and lacked a “quorum of capable judges,” according to the petition.

Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore initiated a complaint against Newman earlier this year under the 1980 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, citing reports from judges and court staff that she’s become difficult to work with and demonstrated declining physical and mental health while refusing to retire or take senior status. Newman has been suspended from hearing new cases while the probe plays out.

“This new information raises serious concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the original hearing” and warrants a rehearing of his case, Wakefield said.

Wakefield represents himself. Klarquist Sparkman LLP represents Microsoft. Cooley LLP represents Microsoft and Snap.

The case is Wakefield v. Blackboard, Inc., U.S., No. 22-819, cert denied 6/26/2023.