Published on
Professor Dennis Crouch, one of the foremost legal scholars in patent and intellectual propery law, has been cited in four recent patent-related petitions to the United States Supreme Court:
- Lynk Labs v. Samsung (25-308)
Both the petition and reply brief cite Professor Crouch’s analysis of the Federal Circuit’s temporal gymnastics with “printed publications” under § 311(b), as well as his empirical findings regarding the prevalence of 102(a)(2) “secret” prior art, cited in order to counter the USPTO claim that the issue has “limited practical importance.” Unfortunately, the Supreme Court denied Certiorari earlier in March.
- Newman v. Moore
This petition cites Professor Crouch’s recent empirical study showing that the Federal Circuit’s dissent rate collapsed from 12% to 4% after Judge Newman’s removal from the bench. The petition uses this data to argue that silencing Newman has chilled dissent more broadly, undermining the court’s institutional independence.
- Agilent v. Synthego (25-570)
This petition gives a recognizes Professor Crouch’s work in the brief’s first footnote, crediting him with describing the Federal Circuit’s presumption of prior art enablement as a “Gordian knot.” The brief then adopts this framing as its central metaphor.
- CAO Lighting v. Wolfspeed (25-1068)
This petition doesn’t cite Professor Crouch, but the petition’s core argument — that 35 U.S.C. § 144 requires the Federal Circuit to issue an “opinion” rather than a bare Rule 36 affirmance when reviewing PTAB decisions — traces directly to his 2017 work developing the statutory textual argument against Rule 36 in agency appeals.