Judge Kara Farnandez Stoll

The White House has announced the nomination of Kara Farnandez Stoll to fill the empty seat on the Federal Circuit Bench left by Judge Rader’s retirement in June 2014.  Stoll is well known in the patent law community and is a litigator at Finnegan Henderson in Washington DC.  She also worked as a patent examiner (electrical engineering and software) for six years prior to graduating from law school.  The extended Stoll family is ripe with intellectual-property-law professionals, including Tom Stoll and Bob Stoll – both of whom were formerly of USPTO management.

In her 16-years at Finnegan, Stoll’s focus has been on Federal Circuit patent law and has represented parties on all sides of the patent debate.  As such, Stoll likely represents, more than anything, a stabilizing force for the court.

From the announcement:

Stoll received her B.S. in electrical engineering in 1991 from Michigan State University and her J.D. in 1997 from Georgetown University Law School. After graduating from college, Stoll worked as a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office from 1991 to 1997. From 1997 to 1998, Stoll clerked for Judge Alvin Schall of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In 1998, she joined Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner, LLP, where her practice focuses on patent litigation, primarily in the consumer electronics, computers, software, and medical devices industries.

Stoll has served as an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School since 2008 and previously served as an adjunct professor at Howard University School of Law from 2004 to 2008. Stoll currently serves as Co-Chair of the Rules Committee of the Federal Circuit Bar Association, and she previously served as Vice Chair of the Rules Committee from 2012 to 2013.

Congratulations to Ms. Stoll on the nomination!

About Dennis Crouch

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. Co-director of the Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship.

147 thoughts on “Judge Kara Farnandez Stoll

  1. IBP: Filtration is a code word for dissection. And the Supreme Court has been adamantly clear since Diehr that the claims must be considered as an Integrated whole.

    “Considered as an integrated whole”? Whatever that means.

    Whether you call it “filtration” or “dissection” or just “using your brain like a normal human being”, it’s still perfectly acceptable practice. What you are not allowed to do is simply find ineligible subject matter recited somewhere in a claim and say “Ha! the claim is ineligible” (that was the holding in Diehr); or, likewise, you are not allowed to find eligible subject matter somewhere in the claim (e.g., some magic word) and say “Ha! The claim is eligible!”. That kindergarten-grade analysis has been utterly decimated by the Supreme Court and subsequent Federal Circuit decisions, to the extent that the analysis was every viable in the first place.

    To reiterate: what the Supreme Court has made “adamantly clear” is that you can’t protect ineligible subject matter merely by reciting that ineligible subject matter in the context of old, conventional but otherwise eligible subject matter. In order to determine whether an applicant/patentee is attempting to perform that stunt, it is logically necessary to understand (1) what ineligible subject matter appears in the claim; and (2) what old and conventional subject matter appears in the claim.

    This is true of every sane patent system on earth, whether you refer to the issue as “subject matter eligibility” or “lack of an inventive concept”. It will always be true.

    Here’s a simple example to help everyone understand why this is the case. We all agree (except for Les, perhaps) that you can’t patent a method of “thinking about new correlation X”. That’s an ineligible method. We also can all agree that methods of administering a drug are ordinarily eligibile for patenting. But merely identifying a step such as this latter step as “eligible” is never going to be sufficient to end the eligibility analysis.

    Consider the following claim:

    1. A method comprising (a) administering aspirin and (b) thinking about new correlation X.

    That claim is ineligible because it protects ineligible subject matter. How do we know this? Easy: look at the claim from the perspective of a person freely practicing the prior art (or what will eventually become the prior art before this claim expires). That person could take some aspirin and, merely by doing so, would now be turned into an infringer when he/she “thinks” about this ineligible correlation. The claim, therefore, protects the ineligible correlation itself.

    Basic stuff. This is the stuff that Stoll needs to have her head wrapped around firmly because if she can’t follow this she doesn’t deserve to be a judge on the Federal Circuit or anywhere else.

    And, yes, it is that important. Just ask Mayo Hospital.

    1. MM, this is what Integrated means, the ordinary, contemporary definition and use of the term, from dictionary.com

      integrated

      [in-ti-grey-tid]

      adjective

      1. combining or coordinating separate elements so as to provide a harmonious, interrelated whole.

      2. organized or structured so that constituent units function cooperatively.

      Copyright 2014 Dictionary.com LLC
      The Supreme Court made it expressly clear in Mayo that the claims in Diehr were found statutory because they were, “Integrated”. In reconciling Diehr with it’s precedents the Court established an “Integration Analysis”. Therefore, in all 101 cases the claims must be considered as an “Integrated Whole” in the concluding analysis, as was done in Mayo and Alice. In the concluding analysis, the concept, ( or other Court created exception ) “must” be “Integrated” to the point the concept itself is not preempted. If not the claims will fail 101, as was the case in Mayo and Alice. Business methods and software are not Court created exceptions and therefore should not be treated as such. Instead, such claims should be afforded a full and proper “Integration analysis” as was done in Mayo and Alice and allowed to rise and fall on their individual merits.
      Today, many members of the Judiciary are not following the Court’s Integration and instead following a dissection analysis under the guise of such terms as, filtration, gist, and distillation, or just as flagrant, totally ignoring “Integration” and inserting another test in the concluding analysis, such as machine or transformation. Judge Lourie is the latest and highest ranking member of the courts to do just that. If the Supreme Court wanted to reinterpret it’s precedent in Diehr as standing for any form of dissection it would have done so in Mayo, instead the Court introduced the term “Integrated” and proceeded with a framework that considers the claim as a whole, in its concluding analysis. Those members of the lower courts that ignore, and willfully violate the Supreme Court’s Integration, must be held accountable. They must have their feet held to the fire of the law!

      1. such claims should be afforded a full and proper “Integration analysis” as was done in Mayo and Alice

        Who determines whether the analysis was “full and proper”?

        You? The guy who is wrong about everything?

        That’s funny.

        1. “Who determines whether the analysis were “full and proper”?

          You? The guy who is wrong about everything?”

          The Supreme Court of The United States of America has already determined it in Prometheus V. Mayo. In that case the Court reconciled its controlling precedent in Diehr with it’s other 101 cases by characterizing the claims as, “Integrated”, that being the reason Diehr was and still is statutory subject matter. In fact I explained this to you in great detail and your only response was to laugh, and say that “integrated” was just a word. This was followed by you trying to pass off a mental steps test dissection proposition as being what Diehr and Mayo stood for. A few days later you were the first on this blog to post the link to the then Interim Guidelines from the PTO on how to interpret Mayo, while bragging you were right. However, much to your chagrin, when read, it turned out that the USPTO adapted the “Integration Analysis” I presented on this blog as the correct way to interpret and apply Mayo to 101,while completely ignoring your pet dissection theory. Thus proving I was right you a complete f00l. And that’s a historical fact.

  2. I would be interested in knowing if the new judge is willing to apply the SCOTUS Integration Analysis from Mayo, and in the concluding analysis consider the claims as an “Integrated whole” or will she follow the erroneous trend of the District court judges of disintegrating claims to the gist or abstract concept and then declaring the claims

    directed to that concept and therefore an exception to 101 statutory subject matter. Because as it has been proven on this blog no software or business method patent application should be “vulnerable” in light of the “Integration Analysis” from Mayo and Alice. Providing of course the application was prepared after Mayo with a legally “Integrated” concept, claimed software and business method patents are not only statutory, they’re 101 bullet proof all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. After all, whenever I have presented the Courts Integration Analysis on this blog no anti patent commentator on this blog has been able to overcome it with any “legal” argument.

    And that’s a fact.

    1. Are you referring to the “integration” vs “filtration” debate?

      Anyone that has read Kant would be aware that after throwing out analytic and prior knowledge, the remaining posterior or synthetic knowledge could easily fail 102 or 103 because the “inventive concept” might only be found in the synthesis.

      If only Americans studied philosophy in high school as is normal in Europe, we would have gotten past this rather 18th century debate on Abstract Idea doctrine long ago.

      1. Filtration is a code word for dissection. And the Supreme Court has been adamantly clear since Diehr that the claims must be considered as an Integrated whole. On that there is no debate.
        For example, let’s take a recent case, Amdocs, and assume for the sake of argument that the Inventor in that case and Judge Stroll both agree the concept of his invention is “using a database to compile and report on network usage.” Now lets assume that Judge Stroll decided that the concept is abstract, and involved in the claims and therefore directed to an abstract idea which is an exception to statutory subject matter.
        My question then becomes, where is the Judges Integration Analysis?

        The Judge clearly fails to apply the Courts “Integration” analysis and the decision should be overturned by the SCOTUS for at least that reason. By essentially ignoring the Courts “Integration” analysis the Judge would be eviscerating the Supreme Courts rule that, “in applying the §101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “‘buildin[g] block[s]’” of human ingenuity and those that “integrate” the building blocks into something more, Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 20), thereby “transform[ing]” them into a patent-eligible invention, id., at ___ (slip op., at 3).” [Emphasis Added]

        If you read the Amdocs case it is clear the Amdocs method ( series of steps ) is “Integrated”, as are all fully enabled claims . It is also clear the process in that case is “Integrated” into a computer system. However rather than dissect, filtrate, distill, or ignore elements, what the court must now prove, is that the concept of “using a database to compile and report on network usage” is pre-empted even when”Integrated” on a computer and therefore falls into one of the implicit exceptions. Likewise all Amdocs would have to prove is that the concept is “Integrated” {to the point} it no longer covers/pre-empts the concept itself. Because as the Supreme Court said, “The latter ( referring to “Integrated”patent claims ) pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible for the monopoly granted under our patent laws.” (See Alice)

        1. You would have thought that Joachim, with all of his super philosophy training would have recognized the “trick” of substituting the word “filtration” for the word “dissection.”

          Oh well, games people play.

        2. 101,

          I’m still intrigued (and somewhat befuddled) by your integration analysis. Would you be willing to give an example of how this works in practice? I won’t nitpick your answer because obviously you can’t make a perfect claim without spending more time than you probably should. Anyway, here is the representative claim from Alice:

          33. A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of:

          (a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions;

          (b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record;

          (c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective party’s shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order; and

          (d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing ones of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.

          How could we modify this claim to survive Alice using ‘integration analysis?’ Thanks for your help and patience 101.

          1. GO, It’s not about modifying the claim. It’s about following the law. Just make sure your specification, drawings, and attached claims identify your concept, then Integrate that concept into a process, machine , manufacture, or composition to the point the concept ( or other Judicial Exception) is not preempted, and you are 101 bullet proof all the way to the Supreme Court.

            Unfortunately, if you filed your application prior to Mayo, and did use an “Integration” framework, there may be little you can do to save it now. Go ask Alice.

            1. Correction, That should be, “Unfortunately, if you filed your application prior to Mayo, and did use an “Integration” framework, there may be little you can do to save it now. Go ask Alice.”

          2. Go, the best example of how Integration works in practice is the Diehr case. If you dis-integrate the claim and consider the equation as the novel subject matter, and ignore the additional steps which are coventional, Diehrs claims are non statutory subject matter.
            On the other hand if you consider the equation as part of the claim, as an Integrated whole, then the overall process is statutory subject matter.
            The only time the Court has considered the separate elements, since Diehr is when the claim is
            1. A law of nature/natural phenomenon.-( Mayo)
            2. An equation, which is like an abstract idea.-(Bilski)
            3. A concept that can be reduced to math which is also like an abstract idea.-(Alice)
            Likewise, any claim to subject matter outside the useful arts, and that falls squarely in the visual, performance, literary, and liberal arts is considered like an abstract idea. And therefore the analysis would require looking at the individual steps and comparing the steps to the Claims”as an Integrated whole.
            This is step two of the Alice two step test based on the Mayo framework. As you can see from the Diehr Court case the Alice test is not a whole sale license to dissect claims, but instead is a framework for considering all claims as an “Integrated” whole, in the concluding analysis.

              1. It’s a witch! It’s a witch!

                Man, back in the medieval days we go……the slime and crude adorn each and everyone. The kings with their money by all the decisions and we with the morals get nothing but our sleep.

              2. Yes Jesse, and the Arrhenious equation in Diehr was math, and yet the claims were statutory. Do you know why? I will tell you in one word,
                INTEGRATION.

        3. Likewise all Amdocs would have to prove is that the concept is “Integrated” {to the point} it no longer covers/pre-empts the concept itself.

          “Do it on a computer” is not sufficient for that purpose.

          Nice try, though.

          1. I have never seen a claim that states

            1. Do it on a computer.

            Such a claim may not pass 112.

            Again, at step two of the two step test, all Amdocs would have to prove is that the concept is “Integrated” {to the point} it no longer covers/pre-empts the concept itself.

            Apparently you do not have any legal argument to overcome that analysis.

        4. the claims must be considered as an Integrated whole.

          Please give everyone some clear relevant examples of method and composition claims that aren’t integrated so we can be assured that you have some clue about what you’re talking about.

          1. MM, you don’t look for claims that are not Integrated. If the claims are fully enabled they are already “Integrated” according to the ordinary, contemporary use of the term. What the Court instructed you to do at step two of the two step test is proceed to make sure the concept, ( or other Court created exception) is “Integrated” to the point it does not preempt the exception itself.

              1. Well MM, can you provide an example of a fully enabled claim that passes 112, but is not “Integrated” according to the ordinary, contemporary definition and use of that term, as defined below?
                Let’s see if you will rise to the challenge or just make a childish remark and run away.

                dictionary.com

                integrated

                [in-ti-grey-tid]

                adjective

                1. combining or coordinating separate elements so as to provide a harmonious, interrelated whole.

                2. organized or structured so that constituent units function cooperatively.

                1. Of course Malcolm is going to run away and call you names as he does so.

                  That’s what he does.

                  That’s what he has always done.

                  Eight years and running.

                  (But hey, it was pretty funny that he was the very first to provide the link to the USPTO directions on integration. It would have been better had he first read that link, instead of providing the link, then calling names, then running away)

      2. “posterior or synthetic knowledge could easily fail 102 or 103 because the “inventive concept” might only be found in the synthesis.”

        Well, if by synthesis you mean a combination of elements, or integrated, your statement is not correct because one can receive a patent on a new combination of all old elements.

          1. Only claims that fall within the limited exceptions created by the Supreme Court would be ineligible. Methods beneficial to conducting business, even ones employing the use of a computer are not an exception, and thus, are eligible when “Integrated” to the point the claims do not preempt the concept it’s based on. And that’s not only my point, it’s the law. See Alice, Mayo.

    2. it has been proven on this blog no software or business method patent application should be “vulnerable” in light of the “Integration Analysis” from Mayo and Alice.

      Really? I must have missed that “proof”, along with the courts.

      whenever I have presented the Courts Integration Analysis on this blog no anti patent commentator on this blog has been able to overcome it with any “legal” argument.

      No “commenter on this blog” has been able to “overcome” your analysis? What’s that supposed to mean? And that’s supposed to be your “proof” that “no software or business method” is “vulnerable” to Alice or Mayo?

      Nice try, Mr. “Expert.”

      Your “expertise” didn’t serve you very well in the run-up to Mayo when you were certain that Diehr prevented the PTO and judges from the eligibility and prior art status of individual claim elements so that one can determine what “innovation” is being protected by the claim. That doesn’t seem like a mistake that an “expert” would make. That seems like a mistake that someone who really doesn’t understand subject matter eligility at all would make.

      1. I have no idea what you are talking about here. Your entire post is incoherent, lacking any point, and certainly does not represent any views of my own.

    3. Admirable flame bait. Look at me! I’m king of some blog’s comments section! I have an argument that no anti-patent commentator on this blog has been able to overcome with ‘legal’ argument!
      .
      .
      .
      .
      And that’s a fact

  3. I am thrilled. Her patent background should help clarify the patent landscape.

    Alice Corp should be interpreted much more limited than the Fed Cir has recently interpreted.

    Looking forward to seeing her input and opinions.

  4. Congrats to Judge Stoll! It’s great to have more women on the Federal Circuit (still not close to 50% but … not bad!).

    I can’t find any indications online that she found the core issue in Mayo v. Prometheus (protecting information by tossing in an old data gathering step prior to the recitation of the information) too difficult to understand.

    If anyone is aware of any pronouncements by her on that case that indicate the usual “confusion”, please share.

    1. Your “litmus test” still suffers from the banalities that your pet theory reduces to.

      You never did agree to hold an honest conversation on the list of problems I compiled with your pet theory…

      1. Your “litmus test” still suffers from the banalities that your pet theory reduces to.

        No, my “litmus test” doesn’t “suffer” from any “banalities”, “anon.” Nice try though. Go ahead and fling some more meaningless insults, crybaby.

        You never did agree to hold an honest conversation on the list of problems I compiled with your pet theory…

        It’s not a “pet theory”, it’s basic logic and also the law. As for “honest conversations”, you can take that comment and shove it where the sun don’t shine (if there’s any room left).

    2. I am glad to see someone appointed that actually appears qualified. (Who cares what gender she is. Gender is not a basis for qualification to the CAFC.)

      1. Who cares what gender she is.

        The White House and a lot of the people who voted for Barack Obama, including myself, in the hopes that he would nominate more female judges. That’s why “elections matter.”

        Gender is not a basis for qualification to the CAFC.)

        Nobody said that it was. But all other things being equal, it seems like increasing the number of female Federal judges is a great thing. Women make up a little more than half the population of the country last time I checked. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that female judges may have more understanding as to how the resolution of a particular issue may affect women.

        See also: link to nwlc.org

          1. Would you argue with the statement that political correctness is all about the political and nothing about the correctness?

            No because people who make such statements are typically boneheaded jackarses.

            1. Quite the contrary, Malcolm as political correctness is a very real problem – an over reach that engenders push back that can impact worthwhile causes. Some of the greatest repression in the US today comes in the form of liberal political correctness. It is a very real problem becuase it hurts the causes of some very real problems.

              Calling anyone who raises the issue of such names is not a great way to move the conversation forward.

              1. olitical correctness is a very real problem

                So is tooth decay.

                Some of the greatest repression in the US today comes in the form of liberal political correctness.

                I’ve no doubt it seems to that way to you. Grab your musket and save all those repressed white men! Bill O’Reilly is baking a very special cookie for you right now.

                Calling anyone who raises the issue of such names is not a great way to move the conversation forward.

                Thats’ funny. Inserting some kindegarten grade b.s. about “political correctness” is your attempt to “move forward” a conversation about the need for more women in the Federal judiciary?

                Keep up the great work, “anon”! It’s guys like you that make my work sooooooo much easier.

                1. um, what exactly is “your work” that my on point comments ‘make so much easier’?

                  I didn’t know that you actually thought that making yourself look like an @$$ was “your work.”

                2. While I doubt we’d agree on much politically, I do think your comments raise a very interesting issue.

                  That is, in my experience, patent attorneys tend to be politically conservative. Traditionally, political conservatives have opposed government intervention in the marketplace. Yet, that is exactly what a patent is.

                  I suppose that discrepancy can be explained simply by the fact that such patent attorneys make a living off of patents.

                3. Or could it be that conservatives believe that your ideas and secrets are your property and we believe in personal property rights to include those ideas and secrets? Nah, your solutions is spot on Arthur. LOL.

                1. I was thinking in part of campus “speech” codes and forced group-think and the demonization of those who would hold opposing non-liberal views. You know, universities, the bastions of thinking, trying to control thought through the mechanism of political correctness.

                  I am not familiar with the “War on Christmas” per se.

                2. “the demonization of those who would hold opposing non-liberal views”.

                  Should i put quotes of Rush Limbaugh et al. on demonizing those who hold opposing non-conservative views?

                  Though i have to agree with the over the top affirmative consent code adopted by UC systems….reminded me of this David Chappelle episode where Dave forced all his female partners to sign a contract before having sex.

                3. Re: Mr. Limbaugh – I guess that you could quote him, as I am sure he does his share of demonizing – just let me know when (and which) campuses pass Rules According to Rush. Then let me know when you understand the very substantial difference between my example and yours.

                4. “Then let me know when you understand the very substantial difference between my example and yours”

                  Demonization is demonization; there is no substantial difference. In effect, it is the incitement of one part of the population to treat the other part of the population holding different views with hostile contempt and the relentless need to utterly defeat the other side through whatever means possible; even including self-implosion and self-destruction.

                  Under this environment, everything is consider a zero-sum game with the mentality of “its either you or me”. This is why Americans no longer see the need to compromise and work together. I do not know how long America’s economic and military dominance will last. But i do know that if and when America fell from its dominance, it would most likely be caused by our own hatred of each other rather than some external enemy.

                5. Sorry Richard but you are absolutely incorrect – demonization under color of authority is radically different than demonization on the radio for which I control the option of changing the channel, turning it off, or turning up the volume.

                  There is a very real substantial difference.

                  Not much use discussing this further with you until you can understand the critical difference.

                6. “anon” : I was thinking in part of campus “speech” codes and forced group-think and the demonization of those who would hold opposing non-liberal views.

                  Oh the horror!

                  It must be so hard to be a rabid wingnut with all that “demonization” going on.

                7. I’ve read your post at 4:18 several times now, looking to see if you had ANY point that you were trying to make, and I cannot find one.

                  Did you have a point?

                8. Richard: Under this environment, everything is consider a zero-sum game with the mentality of “its either you or me”. This is why Americans no longer see the need to compromise and work together.

                  In fact, Americans work on plenty of things together, every day.

                  Unfortunately, for most our lifetimes the biggest (= expensive) things that we’ve achieved as a country typically involved spending hundreds of billions of dollars flying to the other side of the world to blow a bunch of people up because “freedom”. Somehow the country (or at least most of our politicians and the news media) always manage to join hands and march in unison when some blowing up is deemed necessary.

                  Fixing the decaying infrastructure? Providing decent postal service to people? Making it easier for people to vote and participate in our democracy? More funding for public education? Heck no. That’s way too divisive. Besides, someone got beheaded in Afghanistan so we need to spend billions of billions of dollars educating Iraqi people so they know how to use our billion dollar weapons to kill people. Priorities, people!

                  With respect to “compromise”, I can’t say that I’m particularly interested. Why should I be? I don’t want my elected officials to “compromise” with some guy on the other side of the aisle who was elected to strangle the government. As crazy as it sounds, I want my elected officials to do what I elected them to do. If the two (or three or four) sides agree on what needs to be done and I agree with them, I don’t have a problem with doing that just because “the other guys” are on board. But the mere fact that two allegedly “opposed” groups agree on some plan does not make that plan better. On the contrary, it’s typically a sign that one side is getting the shaft and, when the shafted side happens to be right, nobody wins except (wait for it) the members of the “bipartisan” think tank that was paid to foist their awful (and typically self-serving) plan on everybody else.

        1. “It doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that female judges may have more understanding as to how the resolution of a particular issue may affect women.”

          Get real. We are talking about the CAFC here in a patent-centric blog. There is no CAFC patent decision that has a disparate or particular effect on women. You should really just admit that either (1) you favor irrational discrimination or (2) you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Making decisions to favor a particular class of people based on bogus rationales immorally harms members of the disfavored class(es) and perpetuates divisiveness.

          1. We are talking about the CAFC here in a patent-centric blog.

            Right. You seem to have forgotten that Federal judges — including CAFC judges — here other cases besides patent cases.

            In addition, a Federal judgeship is a potential stepping stone to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also hears patent cases, and other types of cases.

            1. Of course I know that the CAFC hears federal claims’ cases. That’s why I prefaced my statement the way I did. Still I think making appointments based on discriminating in favor and, thus, against particular classes is wrong.

              1. Of course I know that the CAFC hears federal claims’ cases. That’s why I prefaced my statement the way I did.

                What “statement” and what “preface” are you referring to? Your comments certainly seemed to suggest the opposite belief.

                Still I think making appointments based on discriminating in favor and, thus, against particular classes is wrong.

                Thanks for spontaneously sharing your deep, sincere concerns about discrimination in America.

                1. …spontaneously… ?

                  Check out the @$$hat at post 6 for such “spontinaity.”

                  Unless of course you are doing that “the rules don’t apply to me” thing again…

          2. Making decisions to favor a particular class of people based on bogus rationales

            You haven’t explained why, all other things being equal (<–an important point set forth expressly in my comment), that the desire for a judiciary that reflects some of the fundamental diversity in the population is "bogus."

            There is no CAFC patent decision that has a disparate or particular effect on women.

            That must be a joke. It’s a joke, right?

            1. Why are you advocating discrimination based on gender? I believe men and women should all be treated equally and subject to the same standards, except I don’t think men should get maternity leave & I always open doors for women.

              “There is no CAFC patent decision that has a disparate or particular effect on women.”

              If you think it’s a joke, provide a basis for your thinking.

              1. Why are you advocating discrimination based on gender?

                I’m not advocating for “discrimination based on gender”. I’m advocating for more female Federal judges, for perfectly rational reasons that are typically only objected to by (surprise!) the dudes who historically kept (and, in some cases, are still working diligently to keep) women at home and in the kitchen. You may recall that up until a short time ago — when some of our parents were alive and kicking — women did not have a Constitutional right to vote. Who’s brilliant idea was that?

                “There is no CAFC patent decision that has a disparate or particular effect on women.”

                If you think it’s a joke, provide a basis for your thinking.

                The CAFC has heard and will no doubt continue to hear cases about women being discriminated against based on their gender. Those holdings will impact women.

              2. And just so we’re perfectly clear: my basis for thinking your statement was a joke is that it was very difficult to believe that you thought you were making a serious point.

                Yes, holdings in cases that don’t involve gender discrimination will not impact women. Thank you.

                As a Federal Circuit judge, Stoll will hear other cases besides patent cases. You know this. Everybody knows this. This being a “patent blog” doesn’t change that fact, nor does it change the fact that Federal judgeships can lead to bigger things.

              3. I’m pretty sure everyone agrees that men shouldn’t get maternity leave. Typically, we get paternity leave (or parental leave). Not sure why anyone would be against that. Hopefully, the trend of leave for both parents in law firms continues to increase.

        1. No we are beaten down sniffling cowards at this point. Obama appointed Taranto and Hughes to obviously burn the system down. Google gave massive amounts (more than any other corp) to Obama’s democrats and he gave them a shadow director, a board filled with anti-patent people, and Fed. Cir. appointees that are shameful.

          We know we are out gunned and history has shown that big corp with lots of dollars has gotten its way in the USA over the last 50 years.

              1. But Your constant need to express your opinion about Obama-Michelle Lee-Google “Patent Axis of Evil” reminded me of this very classic comedy exchange in Joe Dirt:

                Buffalo Bill: “It puts the lotion on…you have no idea what kind of he!! i can bring you!”.
                Joe Dirt: “Ohhh alright…enough of your broken record…ok…been down here two weeks man what do you want?”
                Buffalo Bill: “It puts the lotion on its skin…NOW!”
                Joe Dirt: “say it don’t spray it brother…dang…need a towel now.”

                link to youtube.com

                1. “I think you may need psychiatric help”.

                  I am not the one screaming about some kind of conspiracy between Google and Obama at every opportunity.

                2. Uh Richard, the Financial Times just had an article about Google being the number one giver. The Washington Post recently had an article about how patents have become political. Lee is a former Google executive. Google has said there biggest fear is innovation. Google is attacking IP rights on all fronts.

                  So, let’s be real. Influence is what I am saying. I never said conspiracy. So, nice try, but there is plenty of evidence that Google is doing exactly what I am saying and that Obama was influenced by the massive influx of money into patents.

                  So, try to play fair.

                3. And Richard before you start going wild again, how about you spend some time to educate yourself. Moreover, Obama said he was going to take actions into his own hands and the appointments of Hughes and Taranto were part of that.

                4. The evidence is overwhelming. But, I guess a clown can get on here and say, gee you look one of those Fox News conspiracy people. Hehehe. Or, gee, here is a extremely perverted clip from a movie and I think you are just like that. Hehe.

                  Grown up boy.

                5. So, dammed if he takes action, and dammed if he doesn’t.

                  A leader has to lead – and not all decisions are going to be popular.

                  And that still doesn’t create a conspiracy.

                6. “So, let’s be real. Influence is what I am saying. I never said conspiracy. So, nice try, but there is plenty of evidence that Google is doing exactly what I am saying and that Obama was influenced by the massive influx of money into patents.
                  So, try to play fair.”

                  Your argument is basically that (1) there is evidence to establish a connection between Obama and Google Money and (2) Google wants to burn down the patent system; hence, this is sufficient to suggest that Obama and Google planted Lee at the USPTO to burn down the patent system. Well, there is a problem with this connection: there are evidence that Obama does not want to burn down the system. After all, President Obama signed the AIA. According to Professor Kunin, the AIA is the single largest job creation bill for patent attorneys. So President Obama hardly wants to burn down the system.

                  Seriously dude, not everyone on this forum cares about this narrative on Google/Obama/Lee Axis. While i am all for you expressing your opinion, there is no need for you to repeat this again and again and again like a broken record. I would suggest you write down all your theories on Google/Obama/Lee in a form paragraph and paste it in one post instead of repeating it all over the place.

                  “gee you look one of those Fox News conspiracy people”.

                  I was thinking more about Fox Mulder and his “the truth is out there”.

                  “here is a extremely perverted clip from a movie and I think you are just like that”

                  I kept forgetting people on this forum may not be in my generation. Joe Dirt is a comedy and that scene from Joe Dirt is a parody of the Silence of the Lamb.

                7. I didn’t realize you had become the editor. You remind me of someone that doesn’t understand the world but from what food they get fed. Blissfully ignorant as long as your own plate is full. Nice for you. I think I will continue to be in touch with reality. You are obviously part of the problem.

                  (And the AIA weakened patents — massively.)

                8. “I didn’t realize you had become the editor. You remind me of someone that doesn’t understand the world but from what food they get fed. Blissfully ignorant as long as your own plate is full. Nice for you. I think I will continue to be in touch with reality. You are obviously part of the problem.(And the AIA weakened patents — massively.)”

                  Kara Stoll was one of the few instructors i actually liked back in law school (and that she and her husband gave me good grade) and I am simply trying to celebrate her nomination. Do you really have to go negative on her simply because it was President Obama who appointed her? How and when did she become a problem in your world simply because President Obama appointed her?

    1. Stoll has served as an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School since 2008 and previously served as an adjunct professor at Howard University School of Law from 2004 to 2008.

      Beware of “ivory towerism”! Or something.

      1. …because there is no such thing as Ivory Towerism in Malcolm’s dimension.

        Just like the patent system is not really under attack…

        Did not all of you hear Malcolm’s booming voice and consider yourself lucky that you have not been commanded to come back thirty years from now?

        1. …because there is no such thing as Ivory Towerism

          Please tell everyone exactly what “Ivory Towerism” is, “anon”.

          Love the capital letters, by the way. It immediately makes the term so much more weighty and important.

          LOL.

          1. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_tower

            And note that the article too uses capitalization (your dust kicking aside).

            As to the deflection of attack by folks rolling the clock back, you incorrectly spin defense as “attack” in your old 180 habit.

        2. he patent system is not really under attack…

          The system has been “under attack” for a long time … mainly by folks like you who never saw a patent they couldn’t embrace and who will never be satisfied until the clock is rolled back 30 years.

          That’s never going to happen, though. So much for “history repeating itself.” But a map is not a pipe. Or something.

        1. For the OAs, you would probably have to request the paper files. There probably aren’t any in Public PAIR, owing to their age, unless one or more of them went through re-exam or something.

  5. “i4i Ltd. v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir.). Successfully represented i4i in the largest ($290 million) patent verdict sustained on appeal.”

    It’s like NWPA’s dream come tru!

      1. Fact is that I think she is arrogant and not nearly as talented as she thinks she is (and a bit mean too). But, again, compared to Taranto and Hughes this is great news.

        1. Ha! Like every patent attorney I ever met! Sounds like a decent appointment – at the very least a person that has litigated enough to understand due process.

            1. Two thoughts come to mind.

              In England, the patents judges come from the ranks of patent litigators. None of them display any pro or anti patent bias. Why should they?

              In England, when a politician accepts a post in Brussels (Belgium) as an EU Commissioner, it is to be expected that they will “go native”, see the wider pan-European picture, and start making speeches critical of the UK’s narrow domestic political standpoint. What else would one of expect of an intelligent and articulate person who, when the facts change, will change their mindset accordingly?

              1. Here in the US we are corrupt. We have capture of our regulators where the regulators go from regulating to getting paid off for having given the regulated what they want.

                Often, the judges are no better. Some are picked based on their willingness to profess that they will carry out a goal of the picker or maintain an ideology.

                We are an empire in decline. Our system is broken. Most of the people are either directly or indirectly being paid off by big business.

                Google wants to end our patent system. They have Google bucks and lots of good reasons to want to do it. It buys a lot. This nomination does not appear to be Google bought at all. It appears that Obama is reacting to a bit of a back lash from his obviously incompetent judges that he appointed in the last round, i.e. Hughes and Taranto. Two judges that never showed any interest in science until Obama appointed them to the Fed. Cir. The two are a travesty and an indication that we are in decline.

                1. There are recent journal articles about how the SCOTUS has become in general a legislative body. The problem is that we have all these issues like abortion, etc. that have been legislated by the SCOTUS. The reality is our Constitution is broken. We need to fire all the justices and make them apply the Constitution and then amend the Constitution when we don’t like it. Or for tough issues the Constitution does not speak to, then we need to amend it and not have the SCOTUS make wild speculations about what the founders would have done.

                  Anyway, that is at the core of the problem. Just one or two justices could completely change our set of laws in many areas, which creates justices that are legislators and not ones that are applying the law and enforcing the Constitution.

                2. jesse,

                  What you do not grasp is that a revolution has already taken place (not all revolutions occur with bombs and blood).

                  The revolution that has taken place is that the separation of powers doctrine has been ignored (and in fact, the Court has been cheered onto writing patent law from the bench) in direct contradiction of the constitutional appointment of authority to write patent law.

                  Let’s visit Marbury v Madison again folks: a mere justice of the peace commission was at stake in that case. There, the Exexutive Branch was the branch attempting to violate the separation of powers.

                  This confrontation is far more important (even if largely ignored by the academics). In this matter, the appointe innovation engine is under attack, and it is the top level of the Judicial Branch that is violating the separation of powers. Far too many people want to [shrug] and say, “oh well, how do we make the best of it.” Such bland de facto acceptance of the revolution, of accepting the misappropriation of constitutional power is sought to be a “patent peace for our time.”

                  History shows that such an attitude does not work out too well.

                3. What you neglect is that it is the responsibility to interpret ambiguous laws.

                  Part of that happens because language changes over time. Thus the original definition of words also change.

                  The definition of “manufacture” originally meant a mechanical contrivance. Now it seems to mean anything a lawyer wants.

                  Yet you praise a change of definition when it suits you, but not others.

                  A “revolution” doesn’t have to be violent – but for what you and Night want, the constitution must be replaced, and that would be revolutionary – as it has happened once already.

                  Constitutions get replaced when they don’t work anymore.

                  The US constitution is still the most readable of foundations, and so far, it still works – though it has been stretched way out of shape by Congress. Personally, I think the Supreme Court should call more laws unconstitutional rather than trying to contort them into something that is at least CLOSE to being constitutional.

                  What has made things really difficult is lawyers redefining words to suit themselves.

                  Laws are no longer written in English. They are written in Legalese, which has only a rather skimpy connection to English.

                  Patents are also written in Legalese (even the patents from the 1920s are easier to read), which makes them nearly useless for those people working in the field the “patents” supposedly govern.

                4. Reading a map is just not the same as writing a map.

                  3, the new 4, is not 5 – this reflects that a diminishing minority had attempted an EXPLICIT rewriting of the words of Congress an in that instance failed. However, that was not the only gambit at re writing. Witness the insertion of the (undefined) word “technological” in the recent Alice case.

                5. And you are not paying attention, as Night and I hew to preserving the Constitution and the separation of powers.

                  You might try to actually address the points being made here.

                6. Manufacture has never meant only a mechanical contrivance.

                  Sorry, but you are simply in error on that point.

                  (but at least you seem cognizant of where the software as machine component logic takes you, even if you don’t like that fact because it threatens your belief system)

                7. This confrontation is far more important (even if largely ignored by the academics). In this matter, the appointe innovation engine is under attack, and it is the top level of the Judicial Branch that is violating the separation of powers. Far too many people want to [shrug] and say, “oh well, how do we make the best of it.” Such bland de facto acceptance of the revolution, of accepting the misappropriation of constitutional power is sought to be a “patent peace for our time.”

                  History shows that such an attitude does not work out too well.

                  That’s one of the funnier examples of Godwin’s law that I’ve seen in a while. Thanks for the laugh, anon.

                8. Labeling this as an example of Godwin’s Law is just another attempt to say “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

                  link to youtube.com

                  You yourself fall prey to the David Weigel noted form of abuse of the law, since you attempt to insert the reference as a distraction or diversion and mischaracterize my position as extreme hyperbole when my position is not.

                9. You yourself fall prey to the David Weigel noted form of abuse of the law, since you attempt to insert the reference as a distraction or diversion and mischaracterize my position as extreme hyperbole when my position is not.

                  I have no idea who David Weigel is, but I’m sorry that he thinks I’m abusing the law. And I guess you’re right – your suggestion that our collective unwillingness to get too worked up about the Supreme Court’s statutory subject matter jurisprudence is comparable to the world’s failure to recognize the threat posed by 1938 Germany and will lead to similar results isn’t extreme hyperbole at all. It’s only ridiculous hyperbole.

                  Labeling this as an example of Godwin’s Law is just another attempt to say “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

                  Oh, so now you’re the Wizard of Oz? I suppose that’s better than when you compared yourself to Galileo.

                  Thanks again, anon. Neville Chamberlain, David Weigel, Sun Tzu, John Marshall, L. Frank Baum — You’re off to a really good start today! Now if we can just figure out how to work Kondratieff’s long wave theory into the conversation…

                10. Keep focusing on the dust you are kicking up, on anything other than the fact that the separation of powers doctrine has been violated – and violated in a far more egregious manner than a justice of the peace commission.

                  And it is clearly not I playing the role of the Wizard of Oz, attempting distraction from the issue out forth – that would be you.

                11. “Here in the US we are corrupt. ”

                  Speak for yourself brosef.

                  “Most of the people are either directly or indirectly being paid off by big business.”

                  How does one get into the game of being paid off by big business simply for being one of “most people”?

                12. 6, the most people applies to people that are policy makers. Not the peons. Sorry. You are a peon. You need to rise up a few levels before corps will try to lure you with visions of stock options.

                13. Thanks jesse – your own definition defeats you as wares by manual labor includes soft-wares by man’s writing.

                  Sun- Tzu – read it again and understand that you continue to choose battle in the terrain of law, of which you just don’t understand.

                14. It’s not me with the reading disability.

                  Maybe you want to Ty again and find a defintion that supports – rather than destructs – your view…

    1. I4i? That’s a bad thing to have on your record. And the short bio isn’t promising, either. A career in software patents makes it much less likely that she has a reasonable attitude toward software patents or any other patents. She knows that her whole career field depended on grossly invalid patents, abuse, and blackmail even when she wasn’t driving them herself.

      Maybe the new R senate will keep her in limbo for a couple years. That might be the best we can hope for now.

      And it’s another signal that nobody should be depending on Obama for strategy, loyalty, or consistency.

      1. >She knows that her whole career field depended on grossly invalid >patents, abuse, and blackmail even when she wasn’t driving them herself.

        Uh, or she believes that patent promote innovation like the recent article I just posted regarding the former CEO of HP.

        1. Plenty of evidence for Owen’s tendencies jesse.

          This is hardly his first post in these boards.

          Or are you just out for a little ankle nibble?

          1. You use that word “evidence” but I think that you do not understand what that word means.

            Owen’s words themselves are the evidence.

            Whether or not there is disagreement with the viewpoint is a collateral matter to the words as evidence.

            You really do like I talk in a terrain of which you have no understanding. See Sun Tzu.

      2. Owen,

        Why do you consider i4i to be a bad thing on her record? Do you understand the issue in play with that case, or are you merely blinded by your emotional end goal?

        Also, what constitutes “reasonable” in your aim for a “reasonable attitude toward software patents or any othe patents”? You yourself have yet to show a reasonable appreciation for the law as written by Congress, so what you mean by “reasonable” is not likely to be according to the law as written.

        Should I repost the accolade to the English Judge Jacob concerning the role of the judge? Or do you really think it “reasonable” that judges should be actively legislating from the bench in order to pursue their appointer’s political objectives?

      3. Why would the Republican filibuster a Fed Cir appointee? I doubt Ms. Stoll ever participated in cases involving abortion, civil rights, EPA, and etc.

        I had her and Tom Stoll as instructors for Fed Cir Practice Seminar. My impression of her is that she knows herself, her opposing counsels, and the judges hearing her case to make a pretty accurate assessment of the strength of her case. In other words, she is someone with a great sense of judgment. I think she will make a great judge.

        1. Historically Republicans have delayed hearings for Obama nominees and blocked votes on confirmation routinely, regardless of the offices at issue. With a change of administration coming up in two years, they may just try saving judgeships for a Republican president. That has been the pattern by opposition parties that anticipate taking the White House in 1991-1992, 1999-2000, and 2007-2008. But maybe they won’t see CAFC as a plum and will just pass on the appointment.

          I’m glad she has made a positive impression and hope she will do better on the court than I fear.

            1. I recalled 7 democrats and 7 republicans making a deal back in ’05 averting the nuclear option. I also recalled Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option last year….one has to wonder what happened to the original deal and whether the original 7 republicans would have been willing to cut a new deal to avert the nuclear option.

Comments are closed.