Case: 17-1866
`
`Document: 55—1
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 08/29/2018
`
`(l ole)
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`minim étates QJZuurt of Qppealz
`
`for the feheral QD’rcut’t
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
`Appellant
`
`V.
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`Appellee
`
`2017-1866
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-
`01973.
`
`Decided: August 29, 2018
`
`DOUGLAS HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER, Ropes & Gray LLP,
`Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented
`by STEVEN PEPE, New York, NY;
`JAMES RICHARD
`BATCHELDER, JAMES LAWRENCE DAVIS, JR., East Palo Alto,
`CA.
`
`GREGORY J. GONSALVES, The Gonsalves Law Firm,
`Falls Church, VA, argued for appellee. Also represented
`by THOMAS F. MEAGHER, Meagher Emanuel Laks Gold-
`berg & Liao, LLP, Princeton, NJ.
`
`

`

`Case: 17—1866
`
`Document: 55-1
`
`Page: 2
`
`Filed: 08/29/2018
`
`(2 of 13)
`
`2
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. V. SIPCO, LLC
`
`Before NEWMAN, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`
`STOLL, Circuit Judge.
`
`Emerson Electric Co. challenged various claims of
`SIPCO, LLC’s US. Patent No. 8,013,732 in an inter
`partes review. The US. Patent and Trademark Office’s
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that Emerson
`failed to show that certain claims would have been un-
`
`patentable as obvious. Because the Board did not ade-
`quately explain its reasoning on a point that was central
`to its analysis and its conclusion on that point was con-
`trary to another Board opinion on nearly identical facts,
`we vacate the Board’s determination as to the appealed
`claims and remand for further proceedings.
`
`I A
`
`SIPCO’s ’732 patent is titled “Systems and Methods
`for Monitoring and Controlling Remote Devices.”
`It
`describes and claims systems and methods for “monitor-
`ing a variety of environmental and/or other conditions
`within a defined remotely located region,” such as utility
`meters in a specific area. ’732 patent, Abstract.
`
`The patent effectively takes a prior art wired sensor
`network and converts it to a wireless network. Compare
`id. Fig. 1, with id. Fig. 2, and col. 4 ll. 42—43, and col. 7
`11. 33—56.
`Independent claim 13 is illustrative of the
`invention, which is directed to a system for wirelessly
`monitoring conditions in a defined region:
`
`13. In a system couiprising a plurality of wireless
`devices configured for remote wireless communi-
`cation and comprising a device for monitoring and
`controlling remote devices, the device comprising:
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1866
`
`Document: 55-1
`
`Page: 3
`
`Filed: 08/29/2018
`
`(3 of 13)
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. V. SIPCO, LLC
`
`3
`
`a transceiver having a unique identification code
`and being electrically interfaced with a sensor, the
`transceiver being configured to receive select in-
`formation and identification information trans-
`
`mitted from, another wireless transceiver in a
`
`predetermined signal type;
`
`the transceiver being further configured to wire-
`lessly retransmit in the predetermined signal type
`the select
`information,
`the identification infor-
`mation associated with the nearby wireless trans-
`ceiver, and transceiver identification information
`associated with the transceiver making retrans-
`mission; and
`
`a data controller operatively coupled to the trans-
`ceiver and the sensor, the data controller config-
`ured to control the transceiver and receive data
`
`from the sensor, the data controller configured to
`format a data packet for transmission via the
`transceiver, the data packet comprising data rep-
`resentative of data sensed with the sensor.
`
`Id. at claim 13.
`
`B
`
`inter
`In September 2015, Emerson petitioned for
`partes review of claims 13, 14, 16—21, and 23—35 as obvi-
`ous under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Each ground Emerson articu-
`lated included Kahn1 in view of the Admitted Prior Art.2
`
`Robert E. Kahn et al., Advances in Packet Radio
`1
`Technology, 66 Proceedings of the IEEE 1468 (1978)
`(Ex. 1002) (“Kahn”), J .A. 376—404.
`2
`Petitioner defined the “Admitted Prior Art” as the
`
`disclosures found in the ’7 32 patent at column 1, lines 54
`through 65; column 2,
`lines 27 through 29; column 5,
`lines 32 through 44; and Figure 1. Emerson Elec. Co. U.
`
`

`

`Case: 17—1866
`
`Document: 55-1
`
`Pagez4
`
`Filed208/29/2018
`
`(4 of 13)
`
`4
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. V. SIPCO, LLC
`
`Kahn discloses a wireless packet radio network. Kahn
`at 1468 col. 1, J .A. 376.
`Indeed, Kahn explained that one
`capability of the packet radio network was rapid and
`convenient deployment. Kahn at 1470, J.A. 378. The
`Admitted Prior Art discloses monitoring and control
`systems, including sensor actuators electrically coupled to
`a local controller. See ’732 patent, col. 5 11. 32—37. Emer-
`son, in its petition, relied on Kahn for the motivation to
`use the wireless packet radio of Kahn as a communication
`network for the prior art monitoring and control systems
`described in the Admitted Prior Art. Petition Requesting
`Inter Partes Review, Emerson Elec. Co. U. SIPCO, LLC,
`IPR2016-01973, Paper2 at 14 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 25, 2015)
`(“Petition”), J .A. 82. Specifically, Emerson argued that a
`skilled artisan:
`
`would have recognized the advantage of using the
`communication infrastructure disclosed in Kahn
`
`to allow the sensors and actuators of the [Admit-
`ted Prior Art] to be moved from location to loca-
`tion without having to re-install physical cables
`and wires to connect the sensors and actuators.
`
`the Board instituted inter partes
`In March 2016,
`Id.
`review based on all of the grounds in Emerson’s petition.3
`
`At the oral hearing, Emerson for the first time re-
`ferred to an article by Bill Greeves, SCADA Uses Radio to
`Bridge the Gap, 14 Sensor Review, no. 2, 1994, at 31
`(“Greeves”), J .A. 1368—72, to support its argument regard-
`
`SIPCO, LLC, No. IPR2015-01973, Paper 25 at 2 n.2
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) (“Final Written Decision”).
`3 Because the Board issued a Final Written Deci-
`
`sion addressing all the claims that Emerson challenged,
`this case is not impacted by the Supreme Court’s recent
`decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348
`
`(2018).
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1866
`
`Document: 55-1
`
`Page:5
`
`Filed: 08/29/2018
`
`(5 of 13)
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. V. SIPCO, LLC
`
`5
`
`ing motivation to combine. Emerson relied on Greeves to
`show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`been motivated to combine Kahn and the Admitted Prior
`
`Art, noting that Kahn itself affirmed that the need for
`cost reduction described in the Admitted Prior Art was a
`
`known problem. The Board, however, determined that it
`would be improper for it to rely on Greeves as evidence of
`motivation to combine because Emerson did not rely on it
`until oral argument.
`It was SIPCO’s declarant who
`introduced Greeves into the record for the purpose of
`showing challenges with radio technology. Emerson did
`not even mention Greeves in its briefing or its expert
`declaration. Accordingly, the Board focused its analysis
`only on Kahn and the Admitted Prior Art.
`
`The Board, in its Final Written Decision, concluded
`that it was “not persuaded that Kahn provides a ra-
`tionale, separate and apart from hindsight, which would
`motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
`teachings of Kahn and the [Admitted Prior Art].” Final
`Written Decision at 12. Accordingly, the Board held that
`Emerson had not proven by a preponderance of the evi-
`dence that the challenged claims of the ’732 patent were
`unpatentable. Emerson timely appeals. We have juris-
`diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`II
`
`appeal:
`on
`issues
`two main
`raises
`Emerson
`(1) whether the Board erred by not considering Greeves;
`and (2) whether the Board erred in finding that one of
`ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine
`the teachings of Kahn and the Admitted Prior Art. A
`patent claim is invalid “if the differences between the
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1866
`
`Document: 55-1
`
`Page: 6
`
`Filed: 08/29/2018
`
`.
`
`(6 ole)
`
`6
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. V. SIPCO, LLC
`
`having ordinary skill in the [relevant] art [(‘PHOSITA’)].”
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)4; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US.
`398, 406 (2007). We must “be careful not to allow hind-
`sight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed
`invention without any explanation as to how or why the
`references would be combined to produce the claimed
`invention.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
`Inc., 688 F.3d 1343, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In-
`nogenetics, NV. 0. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3
`(Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`
`We review the Board’s Final Written Decision “to en-
`
`is] not ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
`sure that [it
`. otherwise not in accordance with law .
`.
`.
`discretion,
`.
`.
`[or] unsupported by substantial evidence.”’
`Pers. Web
`Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 992 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (quoting 5U.S.C. §706(2)(A),
`(E)) (alterations in
`original). “[I]n order to ‘allow effective judicial review, .
`.
`.
`the agency is obligated to “provide an administrative
`recordshowing the evidence on. which the findings are
`based, accompanied by the agency’s reasoning in reaching
`its conclusions.””’
`Id. (quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
`Graphics Corp, 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
`overruled in another respect by Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal,
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). “For judicial review to be
`meaningfully achieved within these strictures, the agency
`tribunal must present a full and reasoned explanation of
`
`4 Congress amended § 103 when it enacted the
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`(“AIA”).
`Pub. L.
`No. 112-29, §3(c), 125 Stat. 284, 287 (2011). However,
`because the application that led to the ’732 patent has
`never contained (1) a claim having an effective filing date
`on or after March 16, 2013, or
`(2) a reference under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or applica-
`tion that ever contained such a claim, the pre-AIA § 103
`applies. See id. § 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. at 293.
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1866
`
`Document: 55-1
`
`Page:7
`
`Filed208/29/2018
`
`(7 of13)
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. V. SIPCO, LLC
`
`7
`
`In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`its decision.”
`2002). The Board must articulate “logical and rational
`reasons for [its] decision [].” Pers. Web, 848 F.3d at 992
`(alterations
`in original)
`(quoting Synopsys, 814 F.3d
`at 1322).
`
`At the outset, we conclude that the Board did not err
`by disregarding Greeves. As we have previously acknowl-
`edged, “the PTO has advised participants in its Board
`proceedings that, at oral argument,
`‘[a] party... may
`only present arguments relied upon in the papers previ-
`ously submitted. No new evidence or arguments may be
`presented at the oral argument.”’ Dell Inc. v. Acceleron,
`LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (alterations in
`original)
`(quoting Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012)). Under this
`rule, it was improper for Emerson to rely on Greeves for
`the first time at the hearing before the Board.
`
`Turning to the second issue on appeal, we agree with
`Emersononly to the extent that the Board did not ade-
`quately explain and support its conclusion that Kahn
`would not have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art
`to combine the teachings of Kahn and the Admitted Prior
`Art for flexibility and rapid deployment. See Final Writ-
`ten Decision at 12.
`In analyzing this issue,
`the Board
`reproduced portions of Dr. Heppe’s declaration, the Kahn
`reference, and Emerson’s briefs. Aside from those direct
`quotes, the Board’s analysis consisted of only two conclu-
`sory sentences: “[a]s previously noted, however, Petitioner
`does not identify discussion of physical cables or wires in
`Kahn,” and “Kahn, however, does not seem to discuss
`such issues.” Id. at 11—12. Without any further reason-
`ing, the Board concluded that Kahn does not provide a
`rationale,
`separate from hindsight,
`that would have
`motivated a skilled artisan to combine the teachings of
`Kahn and the Admitted Prior Art.
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1866
`
`Document: 55-1
`
`Page: 8
`
`Filed: 08/29/2018
`
`(8 of 13)
`
`8
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. V. SIPCO, LLC
`
`But the Board came to the opposite conclusion on
`nearly the same facts in another inter partes review. The
`’732 patent at
`issue here is
`related to U.S. Patent
`No. 8,754,780, which was also subject to an inter partes
`review (IPR2016-00984). Emerson Elec. Co. v. SIPCO,
`LLC, No.1PR2016-00984, 2017 WL 4862106 (P.T.A.B.
`Oct. 25, 2017) (“IPR2016-00984 Final Written Decision”).5
`In IPR2016-00984,
`the Board observed that
`the two
`patents “share nearly the same specification” and have
`“nearly identical claims.”
`Id. at *10.
`In particular,
`claim 13 of the ’732 patent and claim 1 of the ’780 patent
`differ only by a few words—differences the Board found
`were non-substantive.
`In October 2017, the Board issued
`a Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00984,
`finding
`’780 patent claim 1 (and other claims) unpatentable over
`the same combination of Kahn and the Admitted Prior
`
`Art at issue here.6 Id. at *23.
`
`The Board came to opposite conclusions on patentabil-
`ity of these nearly identical claims despite considering
`nearly identical evidence in both cases. As discussed
`above, the Board found that the differences between the
`two patents’
`claims
`and specifications were
`non-
`substantive. Both inter partes reviews considered the
`same Kahn reference in searching for a motivation to
`combine, although we acknowledge that
`the Greeves
`reference was properly raised and considered by the
`Board in IPR2016-00984. Dr. Heppe’s declarations were
`identical in relevant part regarding motivation to com-
`bine. Compare Decl. of Dr. Heppe, Ex. 1004, Emerson
`Elec. Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, IPR2015-01973, J.A.435—39,
`
`This IPR is also on appeal before this court. See
`5
`SIPCO, LLC 'v. Emerson Elec. Co., No. 18-1364 (Fed. Cir.
`filed Dec. 21, 2017).
`6
`Indeed, the same panel of Administrative Patent
`Judges decided the two inter partes reviews.
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1866
`
`Document: 55-1
`
`Page: 9
`
`Filed: 08/29/2018
`
`(9 of 13)
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. V. SIPCO, LLC
`
`9
`
`of
`2015), with Decl.
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 25,
`1M] 29—32
`Dr. Heppe, Ex. 1018, Emerson Elec. Co. U. SIPCO, LLC,
`IPR2016-00984, 1M} 40—43 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016). And,
`in IPR2016-00984, the Board found “credible Petitioner’s
`arguments and Dr. Heppe’s opinion” that “an advantage
`of using wireless .
`.
`. networks was to avoid the need for
`wires” and that a skilled artisan “would have been moti-
`
`vated to use a Wireless .
`
`.
`
`. network .
`
`.
`
`. to enhance flexibil-
`
`ity in rapid deployment and reconfiguration.” IPR2016-
`00984 Final Written Decision, 2017 WL 4862106, at *16.
`Here, in contrast, the Board considered the same testimo-
`ny and came to the opposite conclusion.
`
`Under these circumstances, we conclude that
`
`the
`
`Board’s decision in this case does not adequately explain a
`key element of its analysis. The decision “does not ad-
`dress, or at
`least does not clearly address,” why the
`statement in Kahn—that deployment of the packet radio
`net should be rapid and convenient—does not provide a
`rationale that would have motivated a skilled artisan to
`
`combine the teachings of Kahn and the Admitted Prior
`Art. Pers. Web, 848 F.3d at 993. Further, as we have
`held, “where a panel simultaneously issues opinions on
`the same technical issue between the same parties on the
`same record, and reaches opposite results without expla-
`nation, we think the best course is to vacate and remand
`these findings for further consideration.” Vicor Corp. v.
`SynQor, Inc., 869 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Some Board explanations can suffice even if brief, as
`when the patent and the art are both clear and readily
`understandable. Pers. Web, 848 F.3d at 994. In addition,
`“we will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the
`agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.” Bowman
`Transp., Inc. v. Aria—Best Freight Sys, Inc., 419 US. 281,
`286 (1974); see In re NuVasiue, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382—
`83 (Fed. Cir. 2016). But, understood in light of our scru-
`tiny of the‘ patent and the prior art, the Board’s own
`explanation must suffice for us to see that the agency has
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1866
`
`Document: 55-1
`
`Page: 10
`
`Filed: 08/29/2018
`
`(10 of13)
`
`10
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. V. SIPCO, LLC
`
`.
`.
`done its job and must be capable of being ‘reasonably .
`discerned’ from a relatively concise [Board] discussion.”
`In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383 (quoting In re Huston,
`308 F.3d 1267, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Here, the Board
`did not explain why an explicit statement in Kahn regard-
`ing a potential motivation to combine was not enough, nor
`did it explain how it determined that
`impermissible
`hindsight would be required to conclude that Kahn pro-
`vided the requisite motivation to combine, particularly
`given its seemingly opposite conclusions in IPR2016-
`00984.
`
`III
`
`We have considered the. parties’ remaining arguments
`and find them unpersuasive. We vacate the Board’s
`decision and remand for further proceedings consistent
`with this opinion,
`including to address the seemingly
`opposite finding from the IPR2016-00984 Final Written
`Decision.
`
`VACATED AND REMANDED
`
`COSTS
`
`Costs to appellant.
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1866
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 08/29/2018
`
`(11 of13)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF
`
`JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION
`
`OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED: 08/29/2018
`
`The attached opinion announcing the judgment of the court in your case was filed and judgment was entered on
`the date indicated above. The mandate will be issued in due course.
`
`Information is also provided about petitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing en banc. The questions
`and answers are those frequently asked and answered by the Clerk's Office.
`
`Costs are taxed against the appellee in favor of the appellant under Rule 39. The party entitled to costs is
`provided a bill of costs form and an instruction sheet with this notice.
`The parties are encouraged to stipulate to the costs. A bill of costs will be presumed correct in the absence of a
`timely filed objection.
`Costs are payable to the party awarded costs. If costs are awarded to the government, they should be paid to
`the Treasurer of the United States. Where costs are awarded against the government, payment should be made to
`the person(s) designated under the governing statutes. the court's orders. and the parties' written settlement
`agreements. In cases between private parties, payment should be made to counsel for the party awarded costs or, if
`the party is not represented by counsel, to the party pro se. Payment of costs should not be sent to the court. Costs
`should be paid promptly.
`If the court also imposed monetary sanctions. they are payable to the opposing party unless the court's opinion
`provides othen/vise. Sanctions should be paid in the same way as costs.
`
`Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed Fed. R. App. P. 34(9) which states that the clerk
`may destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives
`notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandate is issued.)
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`cc: James Richard Batchelder
`
`James Lawrence Davis, Jr.
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Douglas Hallward-Driemeier
`Thomas F. Meagher
`Steven Pepe
`
`17-1866 - Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO. LLC
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. |PR2015—01973
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1866,
`
`Document: 55-3
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 08/29/2018
`
`(12 of 13)
`
`
`
`PETER R. MARKSTEINER
`CLERK OF COURT
`
`‘
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, DC. 20439
`
`CLERK’S OFFICE
`202-275-8000
`
`Information Sheet
`
`Petitions for Rehearing and Petitions for Hearing and Rehearing En Banc
`
`1. When is a petition for rehearing appropriate?
`
`The Federal Circuit grants few petitions for rehearing each year. These petitions for
`
`rehearing are rarely successful because they typically fail to articulate sufficient
`
`grounds upon which to grant them. Of note, petitions for rehearing should not be used
`
`to reargue issues previously presented that were not accepted by the merits panel
`
`during initial consideration of the appeal. This is especially so when the court has
`
`entered a judgment of affirmance without opinion under Fed. Cir. R. 36. Such
`
`dispositions are entered if the court determines the judgment of the trial court is based
`
`on findings that are not clearly erroneous, the evidence supporting the jury verdict is
`
`sufficient, the record supports the trial court’s ruling, the decision of the administrative
`
`agency warrants affirmance under the appropriate standard of review, or the judgment
`or decision is without an error of law.
`
`2. When is a petition for hearing/rehearing en banc appropriate?
`
`En banc consideration is rare. Each three-judge merits panel is charged with deciding
`
`individual appeals under existing Federal Circuit law as established in precedential
`
`opinions. Because each merits panel may enter precedential opinions, a party seeking
`
`en banc consideration must typically show that either the merits panel has (1) failed to
`
`follow existing decisions of the US. Supreme Court or Federal Circuit precedent or (2)
`
`followed Federal Circuit precedent that the petitioning party now seeks to have
`
`overruled by the court en banc. Federal Circuit Internal Operating Procedure #13
`
`identifies several reasons when the Federal Circuit may opt to hear a matter en banc.
`
`3. Is it necessary to file either of these petitions before filing a petition for
`
`a writ certiorari in the US. Supreme Court?
`
`No. A petition for a writ of certiorari may be filed once the court has issued a final
`
`judgment in a case.
`
`For additional information and filing requirements, please refer to Fed.
`
`Cir. R. 40 (Petitions for Rehearing) and Fed. Cir. R. 35 (Petitions for
`
`
`
`
`
`Hearing or Rehearing En Banc).
`
`Revised August 21, 2018
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1866
`
`Document: 55-4
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 08/29/2018
`
`(13 of 13)
`
`
`
`PETER R. MARKSTEINER
`CLERK OF COURT
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`717 MADISON PLACE, NW.
`WASHINGTON, DC. 20439
`
`CLERK’S OFFICE
`202-275-8000
`
`Information Sheet
`
`Filing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`
`There is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from
`
`judgments of the Federal Circuit. Instead, a party must file a petition for a writ of
`
`certiorari which the Supreme Court will grant only when there are compelling reasons. See
`
`Supreme Court Rule 10.
`
`Time. The petition must be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States within 90 days
`
`of the entry of judgment in this Court or within 90 days of the denial of a timely petition for
`
`rehearing. The judgment is entered on the day the Federal Circuit issues a final decision in
`
`your case. The time does not run from the issuance of the mandate. See Supreme Court
`Rule 13.
`
`Fees. Either the $300 docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with
`
`an affidavit in support thereof must accompany the petition. See Supreme Court Rules 38
`and 39.
`
`Authorized Filer. The petition must be filed by a member of the bar of the Supreme Court
`
`of the United States or by the petitioner as a self-represented individual.
`
`Format of a Petition. The Supreme Court Rules are very specific about the content and
`
`formatting of petitions. See Supreme Court Rules 14, 33, 34. Additional information is
`
`available at httpsz/lwww.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/rules guidanceaspx.
`
`Number of Copies. Forty copies ofa petition must be filed unless the petitioner is
`
`proceeding in forma pauperis, in which case an original and ten copies of both the petition
`
`for writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be filed.
`
`See Supreme Court Rule 12.
`
`Filing. Petitions are filed in paper at Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, 1 First
`
`Street, NE, Washington, DC 20543.
`
`Effective November 13, 2017, electronic filing is also required for filings submitted by
`
`parties represented by counsel. See Supreme Court Rule 29.7. Additional information
`
`about electronic filing at the Supreme Court is available at
`
`https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx.
`
`No documents are filed at the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit provides no
`
`information to the Supreme Court unless the Supreme Court asks for the information.
`Revised August 21, 2018
`
`