USAA’s Plea for Consistency Rejected
USAA’s certiorari petition asked the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that the Federal Circuit had effectively sanctioned “contradictory government rulings” over identical patent issues. The insurer claimed that allowing such outcomes violated the basic judicial principle that “like cases must be decided alike.”
USAA further warned that inconsistent administrative decisions — especially between the Federal Circuit and D.C. Circuit, which handle vast swaths of federal agency litigation — risked creating a patchwork of unpredictable patent law enforcement.
The company asserted that fairness demanded an explanation for the discrepancy, accusing the lower court of “arbitrary and capricious treatment” by refusing to reconcile the two outcomes.
PNC Fires Back: “Different Evidence, Different Results”
PNC Bank, however, urged the justices to let the lower-court ruling stand. The bank maintained that there was no contradiction, emphasizing that its PTAB challenge relied on different prior art, arguments, and evidence than Wells Fargo’s earlier case — distinctions that, according to PNC, justified the divergent outcomes.
