By Jason Rantanen
On Monday, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Jimmie V. Reyna to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Reyna's expertise in international trade will serve the Federal Circuit well, as the court's jurisdiction includes appeals from the Court of International Trade (CIT) and International Trade Commission (ITC). In addition to heading the international trade practice area at the Williams Mullen firm, Reyna has also published a slew of articles and two books on the subject. Reyna is an active member of the Hispanic legal community and will be the first Hispanic judge on the Federal Circuit.
Congratulations. You’ve surpassed Mooney as this site’s most bitter poster.
______
Monica.
Funny how the newest posse member never seems to be on point with answers to my simple observations.
Gee, I wonder why.
NOT.
In February, we spent eight times the amount of money we received revenues. Even if we adjusted the tax rate to optimally result in the highest federal revenue that would still allow the economy to grow rapidly, there is no way to balance the budget. Rather, the budget deficit not only will continue to grow but it will continue to grow at an increasing rate as we have to spend more and more of our revenue on interest.
Something has to be done. I am sure you would agree with that. Right?
“with non-white skin tones”
Chuckle city. Clueless…, but chuckle city.
“while your world shrinks”
What the Sam Hill are you talking about there Sunshine?
Med Check!
IBP,
If I were any more downright Cy Nical, Iza say that we have yet another sockpuppet conspiracy mystery on our hands.
Let’s gettim everyone!
And now you’ve made it 6 sentences plus greater context.
You continue to prove my point.
Solipsism–
Your posts, and the context in which they were made, were content-rich.
With all the b.s. you left lying around, I just couldn’t resist planting a flower in the fertile ground.
Ned first-to-file was going to permanently derail the US economy
Don’t worry, Ned. Senator Ryan is going to save the country by cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans, privatizing Medicare, and telling the poor and elderly to sxck it! It’s going to be awesome. What could go wrong? Heritage Institute says we’ll be down to 2.9% unemployment in a few years if we take these simple steps that are virtually painless for everyone who matters.
You prefer to keep things in the dark, and are fearful of discussing important things front and center. You can’t stick to a point. You drift off topic. You have no rational basis for your comments. You have discrete thoughts only, and do not build a body of thinking on any particular subject that is sufficient for anybody else to work with. You’re fickle–you erect temporary barriers to slow the advance of progress, just as defensive measures are implemented in a military retreat to slow the advance of the enemy.
Wow. You can tell all that from the three sentences that I posted? You are far more perceptive than I gave you credit for.
You are welcome.
Hey solipsism–
Come to think of it, you exhibit another reason the patent system, and the US in general, is going down the tubes–the abysmally low quality of rhetoric, argumentation, investigation, and inquiry, which all amounts to ZERO EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP.
You prefer to keep things in the dark, and are fearful of discussing important things front and center. You can’t stick to a point. You drift off topic. You have no rational basis for your comments. You have discrete thoughts only, and do not build a body of thinking on any particular subject that is sufficient for anybody else to work with. You’re fickle–you erect temporary barriers to slow the advance of progress, just as defensive measures are implemented in a military retreat to slow the advance of the enemy.
Well, I will continue to advance and to eliminate your flimsy, hastily-erected barriers. You should embrace growth rather than evidencing your attitudes of obfuscation, obscuration, and containment.
Your actions are instructive, but not in the way in which you believe them to be. Thank-you.
Worse than corny, pingaling, it would be a meaningless non-sequitur. You really are DAAFR.
So how much do you love our newbie txxbxgger Outshone, pingaling? You must both be in a cold sweat over that recent Faux News “alert” about the magic markers with non-white skin tones. The horror! At least you have someone to hold you while your world shrinks.
Solipsism–
First, I don’t believe there can be “degrees” of “uniperspectivity”, as your comment necessarily, and wrongly, requires.
Second, your comment necessarily implied that my perspective does not “include acceptance of the possibility that perspectives different than mine have value”, an implication for which you present no evidence whatsoever, and for which there is ample documentary evidence to the contrary, even in the very quote that you excerpted.
Try posting a comment that makes some sense.
Maybe I should reply with something witty like “Thanks for proving my case”
Nah, nobody’s that corny.
The best sign that they do not care about patent law is their passage of the patent reform bill despite the speech by Diane Feinstein that first-to-file was going to permanently derail the US economy for all the reasons we previously stated.
Some Senators knew of the peril, yet chose to do nothing to stop Leahey, et al. At least one top Democrat told me that he was worried about treading so heavily in an area of law of such complexity.
Indeed!
Any yet they did it anyway. So much for concern for the national interest.
pingaling fluffin the txxbxgger! Who could have predicted? You two look cute in bed.
“newbie/sockpuppet”
Let’s coin a phrase – Oxymalcomic.
Hey solipsism, I presume from your statement that YOU are somehow unique in having perspectives other than your own.
You presume too much. However, my perspective does include acceptance of the possibility that perspectives different than mine have value.
It beats the ignorance that comes from having no knowledge of self. The big difference between you and I is that I actually examine my own beliefs and their origins.
Let me ask, since you have expertise in this area: is ignorance really bliss?
“The life unexamined is not worth living”
Hey solipsism, I presume from your statement that YOU are somehow unique in having perspectives other than your own.
It would be fascinating, were it only possible.
Ah, nothing pulls the heartstrings like a newbie/sockpuppet reciting his stale txxbagger script.
I have always believe that it was important–but hey, maybe I’ve been wrong. Maybe my own belief system is anachronistic.
Or maybe it’s overly uniperspectival.
RE: “Reyna is an active member of the Hispanic legal community and will be the first Hispanic judge on the Federal Circuit.”
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
So long as we segregate Americans into groups and work towards equality among those separate groups, the ghost of Plessy v. Ferguson will outshine Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream.
For anybody who is actually interested, Reyna’s written responses can be found here:
link to 717madisonplace.com
Yes, view, I have in fact read his responses.
There was, of course, the obligatory obfuscation of the issue of “diversity in the judiciary”, with such apparently contradictory statements such as diversity in the judiciary being “vital…to our system of justice.”, but at the same time that “A judge’s background…should have no role in the judge’s decision making…”
Of course, there is no requirement for him to reconcile these, and other, statements.
He also evidences the wearisome doublespeak that we have unfortunately come to expect from candidates whose goal is confirmation–for instance, when asked about his statements made on behalf of the HNBA, he replied that those statements “did not necessarily reflect his personal views”.
That is no answer at all to the question asked, which asked for a statement of his personal belief and an explanation thereof.
His answer to question 8 confirms my suspicion that he has essentially no knowledge whatsoever of any substantive law addressed at the CAFC, other than some in international trade.
This is the person to whom will be entrusted appellate review of errors of patent law, and de novo review of substantive patent law issues?
To his credit, he identified “impartiality” as being a critical judicial attribute–the most important, in his estimation–and that independence is a component of impartiality.
His comments on binding precedent, constitutional interpretation, and statutory interpretation don’t really shed much light on anything, as one would expect, although he does not believe that the constitution should be considered a “living document”.
All in all, the major questions concerning judicial diversity outnumbered those concerning patent law by a ratio of 5:0.25
This is the single best evidence of the lack of importance afforded substantive patent law in the selection of a federal appellate judge, in view of pressing social matters such as racial diversity in the federal workforce, at least according to Senators Grassley and Sessions.
And THAT is yet one more reason why patent law is the complete mess that it is. None of the powers that be, really care. Furthermore, they don’t really understand why the SHOULD care. Patents are, or at least were, a vital element of the national American ethos, which has shifted to define newer and more pressing vital elements such as racial diversity.
It’s a sign of the times. Is patent law becoming an anachronism? It would seem so. As patent applications and ownership shift from individuals to large corporate entities, it becomes increasingly esoteric and remote from the experience of the individual, and important to only a few players in a few contexts, who know precisely who their opponents are going to be, and who are content to fight it out, as long as the forum and procedures are known.
Senators, like members of the general public, do not understand, and do not care about, patent law.
I have always believe that it was important–but hey, maybe I’ve been wrong. Maybe my own belief system is anachronistic.
In any case, considering the function of the CAFC, the vacancy represented an opportunity for patent law to move forward–an opportunity that seems to me to have been missed, or ignored, if it was even noticed at all.
I don’t know that I agree with your broad assessment of patent attorneys Ned, but I do agree that a person of intelligence and wisdom is what is needed.
But, the CAFC is a specialist court, and it is an appellate court.
The kind of person “who is a great judge first” in such a specialized appellate tribunal is the kind of person who, among other things, has a good grip on the special law addressed, particularly because it deals with errors of law made in lower courts.
Also, knowledge of patent law is, I think, indispensable because of the patent issues that are reviewed de novo.
“There’s plenty of legitimate debate to be had. For example, the patent reform bills. The patent application and appeal backlogs. PTO funding. etc.
But the confirmation of one judge to a 13 judge court?”
There is plenty to debate about. But on this particular thread, it be eminently on point to discuss “the confirmation of one judge to a 13 judge court.”
How do you and your ego fit into the same room?
Semi–
Thanks for that.
I agree that the personnel cases are usually relatively uncomplicated, and that their hearing before the (sophisticated) CAFC is probably an inefficient use of judicial resources.
I didn’t know that there were no other J’s on that bench with zero CIT experience, and he may indeed serve well in that capacity.
However, there ARE people out there with significant experience in both IP AND CIT. Of course, many don’t want the job, and many aren’t politically favorable. And many would make just horrible judges.
I don’t have anything against him personally, and it was unfortunate if my posts suggested otherwise. I meant what I said about him possibly being a breath of fresh air in a stale patent room–he’s not encumbered by having done things in any particular way for a long time, and he might not arrive with any of the usual patent-related biases in place.
That said, I hope he approaches the position with a quiet confidence and humility, rather than with the hubris that is displayed by PTO officials. From experience, I have little faith in the competence of political appointees.
IBP, I’d rather have a judge who is a great judge first, a person of intelligence and wisdom, a person who decides narrowly, who has no agendas, and who listens.
Patent attorneys, in my view, are unlikely to be good judges deciding patent case because they have so much baggage. They are likely to prejudge cases, to write broadly on patent law in confidence on their personal views, and be agenda driven on this topic.
My personal views here. But one of the reasons I dislike Rader so much is that he is the opposite of the above. And, I must admit, that I have experienced rough justice, in my view, from Rader who appeared to me to be consumed with his own personal agneda rather than with doing justice.
fish, why? Are patent attorneys inherently more intelligent, fairer, better readers, better listeners, less agenda driven?
Why?
“I don’t think I’ll ever understand all the bitter patent prosecutors who comment here.”
Just an observation – start with an elitist attitude, then take yourself way way too seriously and then get very very defensive about just who posts on what (bonus for maligning innocent cancer survivors).
But look on the bright side – once the bitter ones reach that point, they be real easy to make dance with a jab of a pointy stick. And it really brings the chuckles.
“Thanks for proving my case”
This must be like one of those geometric “I showed you – there I just showed you seventeen times” Sunshine Med induced thingies.
Mmmmm, fluffy.
Stay classy, buddy.
The personnel cases represent 20+% of the docket on both charts, but those are usually uncomplicated and many of them are from pro se petitioners.
CIT cases are often complicated and as far as I know there’s not a single judge on the CAFC with CIT experience. CIT cases are fairly important even if they’re not numerous and generally fly under the radar. Moving from zero judges with CIT experience to one (who seems indisputably well-qualified in at least that subject) is a huge improvement.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand all the bitter patent prosecutors who comment here.
Thanks for proving my case, pingaling. I knew I could count on you, just as long as I wasn’t asking you expressly to help me out.
DAAFR
“Maybe now would a good time to discuss how much better the comments would be without your incessant and petty bullcrxp.”
translation: Sunshine Malcolm only wants to throw out his incessant and petty bullcrxp.
Windmill much?
Or maybe we all can insult some poor hapless cancer survivor, ya know, just for jolllies and all.
pingaling is there anything that raise to the level of concern that it can “legitimately” be discussed on these here mere blog comment pages?
Maybe now would a good time to discuss how much better the comments would be without your incessant and petty bullcrxp.
Sorry HC, but MM holds that trophy in perpetuity.
“Patent law isn’t everything at the CAFC.”
No; but given it’s importance, maybe it should be (w/the other case classes handled by some other court).
“Seriously,…”
Coming from you? Please. Spare me your nonsense.
The idea that J. Reyna was confirmed by the Senate with less scrutiny than Mooney gives to a “computer-implemented method of…” is pretty silly. The concern over his qualifications by some anonymous internet tough guy is beyond silly. It’s theater of the absurd.
Am I not entitled to be a little silly to make a point?
There’s plenty of legitimate debate to be had. For example, the patent reform bills. The patent application and appeal backlogs. PTO funding. etc.
But the confirmation of one judge to a 13 judge court? A totally correct and rational decision by an actual patent prosecutor turned judge (J. Linn) smacking down some dolt prosecutor and his terrible “procedural appeal”? No. Those are not legitimate concerns.
You are now free to carry on being your sad little freaky self.
wtvlfdt – the new What me Worry kid.
Seriously, just cause someone posts about somethin they dont like, the admonition of “the sky is falling’ is rather uncalled for.
Your seemingly fallback to calling everyone a chicken little begs the question – is there anything that raise to the level of concern that it can “legitimately” be discussed on these here mere blog comment pages?
A couple Senators followed up J. Reyna’s testimony at his confirmation hearing with written questions, which J. Reyna responded to. In writing. You can find it somewhere on the interweb. But if you’d rather spend your time posting snarky comments about his alleged deficiencies, well, carry on I guess.
MM–
“ALL the reasons?”, plural?
You mean the SINGLE reason? – his “expertise in international trade”?
I hope that the members of the Senate Confirmation Committee considered the candidate more thoughtfully than did you–although I doubt it.
Andrew–
Nobody is saying that international trade cases are not important.
Patent law isn’t everything at the CAFC, but it is 40%, IP is 44% if you include trademarks.
And the jurisprudence in that 40% is a shambles. It should be the court’s highest priority, unless civil service/vets jurisprudence is in yet greater disarray.
I would have liked to have seen the selection of a candidate who had primary experience in IP, with a good understanding of international trade (those people do exist, I know some myself), rather than one focussed on international trade with absolutely no IP experience.
Alternatively, if civil service/vets jurisprudence is the biggest mess, than a candidate with primary experience in that area, with some understanding of international trade (less likely than the patent case).
Of course, some appellate experience would help in all cases.
The next FedCir judge should have significant patent experience and preferably should be a patent attorney.
“On Monday, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Jimmie V. Reyna to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”
The sky is falling!!!! The sky is falling!!!!! Run for your lives!!!!!
I seem to remember many predicted the apocalypse when J. Moore was confirmed. While I don’t agree with every decision she’s made, I’m also quite certain that the end of Western civilization as we know it isn’t imminent.
The low percentage of international trade cases masks their tremendous national economic importance. Roughly half of the CAFC’s cases concern the federal civil service, veterans or both. Does anyone think that half of the CAFC judges should have a background in those areas?
Patent law isn’t everything at the CAFC.
How would the possible government shutdown affect the USPTO’s operations??
He must be politically connected.
Right, unlike the rest of the Federal Circuit judges.
Seems like a great pick to me, for all the reasons DC noted above.
Below is information from the Williams Mullen web site. Judge Reyna graduated from the Univ. of New Mexico School of law. It appears that Judge Reyna has no experience with prosecuting or litigating patents. He must be politically connected.
“Jimmie Reyna directs the firm’s International Trade and Customs practice group and the Latin America Task Force. He is also a member of the firm’s board of directors. Mr. Reyna advises and represents clients in legal and regulatory matters involving the cross-border movement of goods, services and investments for a broad range of industry and services sectors. His experience includes: trade regulation (antidumping, countervailing duty); trade policy; trade negotiations and agreements; international treaties and accords; investment; business and corporate law; export controls; food safety; and litigation, arbitration and dispute resolution. Mr. Reyna’s multifaceted experience, coupled with substantial experience with foreign legal systems and foreign cultures, enables him to represent successfully client interests abroad and before foreign legal and regulatory bodies.”
Congratulations. You’ve surpassed Mooney as this site’s most bitter poster.
Zero patent experience, right?
Hopefully he will at least be able to contribute to international trade jurisprudence meaningfully, even though that category of CAFC cases has decreased from 7% in 2007 to a mere 4% in 2010:
link to cafc.uscourts.gov
link to cafc.uscourts.gov
Who knows? With the state of CAFC patent jurisprudence, his contribution may be a marked improvement–his likely ignorance thereof could prove to be a great advantage.
Don’t really know anything about the guy–does he have any patent experience?
Comments are closed.