America-Israel Patent Law Blog

Six years ago I wrote about Judge Rader of the CAFC and praised his reversing his position on a particular issue; judges don't always admit to mistakes in their jurisprudence, let alone seek to correct those mistakes given the opportunity.

Yesterday in South Dakota v Wayfair, Inc. et al., a case concerning the applicability of state sales tax to internet sales, Justice Clarence Thomas of the US Supreme Court took a similar tack, stating in a short concurrence that with the benefit of 26 years' hindsight, he believes he erred when the same issue was before him in an earlier case and votes in accordance with his current view. 

Justice Thomas' candor is refreshing. Were it that he and his colleagues would make the same sort of admission with respect the Mayo-Myriad-Alice debacle. There's no shortage of cases seeking certiorari for questions arising under the Court's 35 USC §101 jurisprudence…