« April 2014 | Main | June 2014 »

May 23, 2014

CAFC Chief Judge Rader Resigns in Disgrace

Randall Rader has resigned in disgrace. His avowed disdain of patent trolls, bias towards corporations, and role in dissembling case law into confusion had nothing to do with it. Instead, according to the Wall Street Journal, his praising a litigator in a letter that became public - Edward Reines of Weil Gotshal & Manges - did him in. Reines had appeared a couple of times before Rader on the bench, leaving the Chief Judge in thrall. Rader characterized himself as "inexcusably careless." Not exactly the qualifications you look for in someone on the bench. Next up for Chief Judge is Sharon Prost.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 7:44 PM | The Patent System

May 22, 2014

Mysterious Recusal

The Wall Street Journal reported on the suspicious circumstances at the CAFC over Chief Judge Rader recusing himself from Microsoft v. DataTern (2014) only after the opinion had been published, and after fully participating and shaping what was decided. The court took the highly irregular step of vacating the opinion. Transparency is beyond this court, which prefers to exercise its biases with as much secrecy as possible. Rader has been an outspoken corporate sycophant, denouncing non-corporate inventors as patent parasites that do not deserve their legal rights.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:02 PM | The Patent System

May 11, 2014

Double Standard of Indefiniteness

The CAFC has long maintained that granted claims are definite under §112(b) unless "unsoluably ambiguous." On May 6, the CAFC decided something different with regard to definiteness during prosecution. They could have waited, as the Supreme Court will decide, within a month or so, how claim definiteness should be construed. In re Packard (2013-1204), a CAFC panel declared that a prosecution claim is indefinite if an examiner says so, sui generis, without consideration of the specification. This is contrary to black-letter law, and, recently, the CAFC's own ruling in Energizer Holdings v. ITC (CAFC 2006) ("The definiteness inquiry 'focuses on whether those skilled in the art would understand the scope of the claim when the claim is read in light of the rest of the specification'").

Continue reading "Double Standard of Indefiniteness"

Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:34 PM | § 112