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!
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.
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!
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.”
did “NOT”
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.
Well, #2 and #3 are both math…
🙂
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.
Well, considering how bad things have been…
I don’t much of your morals either 🙂
jesse,
You forgot to think.
Literally and figuratively.
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.
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.
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.
I have never seen a claim that states
1. Do it on a computer.
Of course you haven’t.
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.
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.
If the claims are fully enabled they are already “Integrated”
Complete unadulterated made-up b.s.
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.
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)
“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.
Reminds me of the adage:
“Only God starts with nothing”
(me, I have my handy big box of electrons, protons, and neutrons)
one can receive a patent on a new combination of all old elements.
Such claims can also be ineligible.
What’s your point?
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.
I agree 101.
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.
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.
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
Anyone wishing to look at patents in whose examination Stoll was involved need only click the following link.
link to patft.uspto.gov
The prosecution history of all these patents should be available in PAIR.
She approved some claims that today would probably be considered to have 101 problems.
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.
Alice Corp should be interpreted much more limited than the Fed Cir has recently interpreted.
Why?
poor malcom LOL.
He has a quota.
I agree, splinter.
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.
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…
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).
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
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.)
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
Would you argue with the statement that political correctness is all about the political and nothing about the correctness?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
If nothing else, than the voice in the wilderness that refuses to accept crap.
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.
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.
“Some of the greatest repression in the US today comes in the form of liberal political correctness”.
War on Christmas?
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.