Whether the Federal Circuit's use of Local Rule 36 to issue one-word affirmances in patent cases violates due process and the right to reasoned appellate review

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case represents a dangerous trend in patent cases whereby district courts grant summary judgment while ignoring factual disputes and/or weighing evidentiary disputes against non-movants, thus depriving parties of their right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has failed to correct this trend, but instead has made matters worse. Its now common practice of issuing one-word affirmances without providing a reasoned analysis under its Local Rule 36 is at odds with the overwhelming majority of appellate courts, and is so overused that approximately one third of all patent appeals are now resolved with a single word. These unique patent law specific issues raise the following questions in this case: 1. Do the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to patent cases like any other federal case, including in particular FRCP 56 and its prescription against granting summary judgment when the nonmoving party presents evidence that raises material facts in dispute? 2. Is it proper for the Federal Circuit to use its own unique Local Rule 36 to affirm district court rulings with one-word decisions lacking explanation or analysis, when the grounds for affirmance are unclear in view of the arguments made on appeal?