Dickinson v. Zurko

Dickinson v. Zurko
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 24, 1999 Decided June 10, 1999
Full case name	Q. Todd Dickinson, Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Mary E. Zurko, et al.
Docket no.	98-377
Citations	527 U.S. 150 (more) 119 S. Ct. 1816; 144 L. Ed. 2d 143; 1999 U.S. LEXIS 4004; 50 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1930
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	Patent application 07/479,666 filed, February 13, 1990; Examiner's rejection affirmed by Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Ex parte Zurko, et al., July 31, 1995 (_ USPQ 2d _, Appeal No. 94-3967); request for reconsideration denied, December 1, 1995; Board decision reversed, In re Zurko, et al. 111 F.3d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1997); reheard, Board decision reversed, 142 F.3d 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc); petition for writ of certiorari granted, 525 U.S. 961 (1998)
Subsequent	Board decision reversed on remand, In re Zurko, et al. 258 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001); issued as patent 6,507,909 on January 14, 2003
Holding
Appeals from the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences are to be reviewed for whether the Board's conclusions are supported by "substantial evidence" under the APA.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	Breyer, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas
Dissent	Rehnquist, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg
Laws applied
5 U.S.C. § 706

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that appeals from the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences are to be reviewed for whether the Board's conclusions are supported by "substantial evidence" under the APA.

The Court was asked by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to decide whether the Office's reviewing court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, should review the agency's factual determinations for whether the Office's decisions were supported with substantial evidence (under the Administrative Procedures Act), or whether the evidence was clearly erroneous (such as how a lower court would be reviewed). Agreeing with the PTO, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Office need only have substantial evidence.

External links

• Text of Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)
• Final Court of Appeals opinion after Supreme Court review, In re Zurko et al, 258 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
• Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion II, reversed by Supreme Court, 142 F.3d 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc)
• Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel opinion, vacated by rehearing en banc, 111 F.3d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
• Appendix to Dickinson brief before the Supreme Court (includes opinion of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences) (pp. 35a-45a)
• Application status available through Public PAIR (search for application 07/479,666 or patent 6,507,909)
• Issued U.S. Patent