ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"

(External links: ===News selection=== * [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/appeals-court-says-only-complicated-math-is-patentable.ars Does not compute: court says only hard math is p)
(Some important cases: * Cybersource v. Retail ruling by US CAFC on 16 Aug 2011 - math on a computer can be patentable)
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}
+
{{infobox usa}}
 
The '''US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit''' or "'''CAFC'''" is the national court where patent appeals are heard.  Hierarchically, it is above the District Courts and below the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]].
 
The '''US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit''' or "'''CAFC'''" is the national court where patent appeals are heard.  Hierarchically, it is above the District Courts and below the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]].
  
Line 6: Line 6:
 
==Some important cases==
 
==Some important cases==
  
* [[In re Alappat (1994, USA)]] - ''en banc''
+
* [[Cybersource v. Retail ruling by US CAFC on 16 Aug 2011]] - math on a computer can be patentable
* [[In re Lowry (1994, USA)]]
+
* [[in re Bilski (2008, USA)]] - ''en banc''
 +
* [[KSR v. Teleflex (2007, USA)]]
 +
* [[Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)]]
 +
* [[eBay v. MercExchange (2006, USA)]]
 +
* [[AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc. (1999, USA)]]
 
* [[State Street v. Signature Financial Group (1999, USA)]]
 
* [[State Street v. Signature Financial Group (1999, USA)]]
* [[AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc. (1999, USA)]]
 
* [[eBay v. MercExchange (2006, USA)]]
 
* [[Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)]]
 
* [[KSR v. Teleflex (2007, USA)]]
 
* [[in re Bilski (2008, USA)]] - ''en banc''
 
 
* [[In re Beauregard (1995, USA)]] - which led to patent drafters coining the term [[Beauregard claims]]
 
* [[In re Beauregard (1995, USA)]] - which led to patent drafters coining the term [[Beauregard claims]]
 +
* [[In re Lowry (1994, USA)]]
 +
* [[In re Alappat (1994, USA)]] - ''en banc''
  
 
==Pro-patent tendencies==
 
==Pro-patent tendencies==
 +
 +
{{also|Pro-patent bias in courts}}
  
 
Many judges on the CAFC worked previously in private patent practice.  For evidence of strong pro-patent tendencies in this demographic, see: [[patent lawyers]].  The notable pattern is that their experience is systematically in litigation, and managing large patent portfolios, not in public interest defence or in protecting those who don't have patents against those who do.
 
Many judges on the CAFC worked previously in private patent practice.  For evidence of strong pro-patent tendencies in this demographic, see: [[patent lawyers]].  The notable pattern is that their experience is systematically in litigation, and managing large patent portfolios, not in public interest defence or in protecting those who don't have patents against those who do.
Line 32: Line 35:
 
==Judges==
 
==Judges==
  
This doesn't have to be 100% up to date. The purpose is to have a list of their full names and links to {{SITENAME}} articles if they exist.  The number of active judges varies.  The maximum seems to be eighteen.{{ref}}   
+
(May not be 100% up to date.)
 +
 
 +
The number of judges on the CAFC varies with time.  The maximum seems to be eighteen.{{ref}}   
  
 
===Present===
 
===Present===
 +
* Chief Judge [[Randall Ray Rader]] - described as the most pro-swpat of the Court's members<ref>{{cite web|url=http://opensource.com/law/13/9/software-patents-reform|title=The role of software patents in the patent reform debate (comments section)|quote= The principle supporter within the judicial system of the idea that all software is patentable is Chief Judge Rader}}</ref>
 +
 
* [[William Curtis Bryson]]
 
* [[William Curtis Bryson]]
 
* [[Raymond Charles Clevenger III]]
 
* [[Raymond Charles Clevenger III]]
Line 47: Line 54:
 
* [[S. Jay Plager]]
 
* [[S. Jay Plager]]
 
* [[Sharon Prost]]
 
* [[Sharon Prost]]
* [[Randall Ray Rader]]
 
 
* [[Jimmie V. Reyna]]
 
* [[Jimmie V. Reyna]]
 
* [[Alvin Anthony Schall]]
 
* [[Alvin Anthony Schall]]
Line 78: Line 84:
 
* [[Court cases and lawsuits]]
 
* [[Court cases and lawsuits]]
 
* [[How to submit an amicus brief in the USA]]
 
* [[How to submit an amicus brief in the USA]]
 +
* [[:Category:Court rulings by US CAFC]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
Line 87: Line 94:
  
 
===News selection===
 
===News selection===
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/appeals-court-says-only-complicated-math-is-patentable.ars Does not compute: court says only hard math is patentable], Aug 2011, '''[[Timothy B. Lee]'''
+
 
 +
* [http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/10/03/the-federal-circuit-not-the-supreme-court-legalized-software-patents/ The Federal Circuit, Not the Supreme Court, Legalized Software Patents], 3 Oct 2012, '''[[Timothy B. Lee]]'''
 +
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-a-rogue-appeals-court-wrecked-the-patent-system/ How a rogue appeals court wrecked the patent system], 30 Sep 2012, '''Timothy B. Lee'''
 +
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/appeals-court-says-only-complicated-math-is-patentable.ars Does not compute: court says only hard math is patentable], Aug 2011, '''Timothy B. Lee'''
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 01:26, 20 February 2014

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or "CAFC" is the national court where patent appeals are heard. Hierarchically, it is above the District Courts and below the Supreme Court.

Since its creation in 1982, the CAFC has massively expanded the scope for patenting business methods and software. The CAFC replaced the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.[1]

Some important cases

Pro-patent tendencies

See also: Pro-patent bias in courts

Many judges on the CAFC worked previously in private patent practice. For evidence of strong pro-patent tendencies in this demographic, see: patent lawyers. The notable pattern is that their experience is systematically in litigation, and managing large patent portfolios, not in public interest defence or in protecting those who don't have patents against those who do.

  • Pauline Newman: From 1969 to 1984, Judge Newman served as director, Patent, Trademark and Licensing Department, FMC Corp. [...] She served as patent attorney
  • Alan D. Lourie : He was formerly Vice President, Corporate Patents and Trademarks, and Associate General Counsel of SmithKline Beecham Corporation. [...] he had been President of the Philadelphia Patent Law Association, a member of the Board of Directors of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (formerly American Patent Law Association), treasurer of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel, and a member of the board of directors of the Intellectual Property Owners Association.
  • Richard Linn: ...served as a Patent Examiner at the United States Patent Office from 1965 to 1968
  • Kimberly A. Moore: has written and presented widely on patent litigation. She co-authored a legal casebook entitled Patent Litigation and Strategy
  • ...

En banc and panel decisions

The CAFC usually gives "panel decisions" which are written by a panel of three CAFC judges. The court can also take a case "en banc", which means all active judges of the CAFC participate in writing the opinion (or opinions). The purpose of en banc cases is to set firmer case law on a particular issue.

Judges

(May not be 100% up to date.)

The number of judges on the CAFC varies with time. The maximum seems to be eighteen.[reference needed]


Present

Past

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

News selection

References