With more dissents than any other Federal Circuit Judge in history, Judge Pauline Newman is driven by a need to safeguard our national system of innovation. Judge Newman has argued throughout the years that the Federal Circuit was created to rebuild and renew the patent system to encourage and incentivize industry, which is precisely the purpose both the Carter and Reagan Administrations had in mind when advocating for the creation of the Federal Circuit, which ultimately took form in 1982. Judge Newman has no qualms about speaking out in dissents when the objective of the Federal Circuit to bring certainty to U.S. patent laws is being hindered, in her view, by the majority, regardless of the complexities or dollar-values at stake in the case. In fact, in one interview she declared, “I have not hesitated to comment when I think that a panel isn’t going in quite [the] appropriate direction. Others have felt that perhaps I haven’t gone in quite the appropriate direction . . . . [A]ll in all it seems to me that it’s quite healthy to present a certain amount of turmoil to practitioners in the short run. But in the long-run I think the law is better for it.” George C. Beighley, Jr., “The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Has It Fulfilled Congressional Expectations?,” 21 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 671, 675–76 (2011). Clearly, she is interested in getting the law right for the greater good as she sees it, regardless of
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, August 29: CAFC Affirms Prosecution Laches Ruling Against Hyatt; Trump Admin Cancels USPTO CBA; Second Circuit Affirms Lack of Standing in Ripple Trademark Case
- CAFC Dodges Key Issues in Reversing District Court Finding for Google on Prosecution Laches
- CAFC Corrects PTAB’s Inventorship Analysis in First Appeal of AIA Derivation Proceeding
- Brunetti’s Back: Split CAFC Rejects Most of Scandalous Trademark Applicant’s Arguments But Remands for Second Chance at TTAB
- CAFC is Unconvinced by Claim Construction Challenges to ITC’s Robotics Patent Infringement Finding