John Gottman’s identification of 'stonewalling' as one of the 'Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse' highlights a destructive behavior in relationships that stifles communication and progress. Stonewalling typically manifests when one partner withdraws entirely, leaving the other feeling ignored and invalidated, which can severely hinder conflict resolution. This behavior in personal relationships reflects in the Federal Circuit's use of Rule 36 summary affirmances, which essentially does the same in legal proceedings by providing minimal response to detailed arguments.
The Federal Circuit's implementation of Rule 36 summary affirmances is being compared to relationship stonewalling, as it involves issuing a one-word response 'AFFIRMED' without any accompanying rationale. This not only frustrates legal practitioners but also perpetuates a cycle of disengagement, much like in personal relationships where one party fails to acknowledge the other's concerns. Consequently, this practice faces increased scrutiny, particularly from entities like Island IP that challenge its effectiveness and fairness in the legal system.
Island IP is currently challenging the Federal Circuit's summary affirmance practices through strategic legal maneuvers. By filing a reply brief in a specific case while simultaneously drafting an amicus brief for another, they aim to bring attention to what they perceive as institutional stonewalling. This dual approach underscores the pressing need for courts to provide meaningful engagement and rationale in their decisions, thereby enhancing the transparency and accountability necessary for effective legal adjudication.
Collection
[
|
...
]