Judge Stoll

On July 17, 2015, Kara Farnandez Stoll took the oath of office as Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with a lifetime appointment from the President of the United States.

The court has now returned to its full panel of twelve regular status judges along with six senior-status judges. Of the twelve, seven are Obama appointees.

 

28 thoughts on “Judge Stoll

  1. 4

    Impressive 2 out of 7 with science backgrounds. Nothing like stacking a court.

    A special purpose court to deal with the complexity of patent law and science (I know it does other things). And what does Obama do? He appoints 5 out 7 with NO science background and 6 out 7 without any experience actually practicing patent law. (Chen had a bit and some of the others had a modicum of experience as litigators–whoopee).

    Shameful.

    1. 4.1

      What shocks me is that more people are up-in-arms about this abysmal record. What is likely his last appointment is arguably the only appointment that is qualified to sit on the Fed. Cir. Simply unbelievable. These types of appointments can only come as part of the imperial US where the .01 percent rule and big corp money tells Obama who to put on the court.

      And only in the imperial America would all the sheep put up with this. 30 years ago Obama would have taken a lot of heat for this stacking. Now everyone is just–oh well, business as usual. Google bought the Fed. Cir. I wonder how many will move over as Google executives once their duty is done on the Fed. Cir.

      1. 4.1.1

        Because infrequently appointing patent attorneys or those with undergrad science or engineering educations is not new to this particular administration. A key qualification of several appointed by prior presidents was having been Senate Committee staff attorneys at one time or another. Even back in the days of the CAFC’s predecessor, the CCPA, appointment was a local retirement opportunity for senators that had lost their re-elections.
        Before the CAFC was enacted all patent litigation [vs PTO] appeals went to a regional circuit that rarely had any such qualifications, much less all the on-the-job patent law training all CAFC judges get.

        1. 4.1.1.1

          Except the world has changed. We all know — even Scalia recused himself from a decision because the science was too hard– that science is hard. That patent law is hard.

          Appointing a bunch of liberal arts majors that have never dealt with innovation, science, or patent law is a disaster as we are seeing in the opinions that are being excreted from the vile body of judges.

        2. 4.1.1.2

          Paul, thanks for this history lesson.

          At one time, IIRC, the Supreme Court did not believe CCPA was an Article III court. Certainly, changing its name to the Federal Circuit and adding a few members from the court of claims while reducing the status of that court to Article I, did nothing to truly elevate the Federal Circuit into anywhere near the intellectual caliber of its sister circuits to the extent that its membership, at least initially, did not have the credentials to sit on a circuit court of general jurisdiction.

          Hopefully, the idea that the Federal Circuit is a dumping ground is an idea that has long expired in the halls of congress and of both politicat parties.

          1. 4.1.1.2.1

            Inte11ectual caliber…?

            Pull your head out of wherever it is jammed into and note the LACK of inte11ectual caliber in the scrivinings of the Royal Nine as they desperately cling to their nose of wax addiction.

            (and be sure to make note of your “6-is-an-Einstein-because-he-agrees-with-me” malady.

            1. 4.1.1.2.1.1

              The CAFC has been rendered nigh useless by the brow-beatings from the Supremes (read the mess that that court put out in the Alice case), as well as having been made a mess through the political capture of Obama appointees.

              Let’s wait for the next president to get this right, to str1p the Supreme Court of patent case appeals (notably an item outside of the Supreme’s original jurisdiction), set up a new Article III patent court (yes Ned – Marbury remains satisfied), and stock that court with those who understand the rule of law, the difference between statutory law and common law, and who understand the value of a strong patent system, without the brow beating of an activist and anti-patent Supreme thumb on the scales and a finger in the Nose of Wax.

              1. 4.1.1.2.1.1.1

                anon, the Federal Circuit struggled to some degree due to the vagueness of Supreme Court opinions on 101 from Benson on. Bilski took the cake. You know my view on that case.

                So, the Supreme Court did not hand it to the Federal Circuit except in the case of utterly condemning State Street Bank, the crown jewel of Rich’s legacy.

                Mayo could also be view as a rebuke given that the Feds twice did not get it right.

                But today, the court seems on board.

                All courts get it wrong now and then. But I daresay that the Federal Circuit errs a lot more often than the Supreme Court.

                1. Nice non sequitur Ned – it aligns perfectly with your “6-is-an-Einstein-because-he-agrees-with-me” malady.

                  You discount the mistakes and elevate the alignment – nothing more. This lack of ability to objectively view the Court is a bug, not a feature.

  2. 3

    The new 12 to 6 ratio of non-senior to senior-status judges at the Federal Circuit could be important in a few cases, especially some more likely to be granted Sup. Ct. cert.
    As noted in a earlier blog, per Fed. Cir. Rules [as well as corresponding rules in other Circuits] “..a senior status judge member of a three-judge panel that decided the original opinion [likely the dissenter] may participate in the panel rehearing and on the court sitting en banc IF en banc review is granted, but may NOT participate in the vote whether or not to GRANT en banc review.” [emphasis supplied for clarity].

      1. 3.1.1

        The rule is statutory. 28 USC 46(c) limits senior judges from deciding whether to take a case en banc, but they (unlike judges sitting by designation) can participate in the en banc if they were part of the original panel.

      2. 3.1.2

        I believe 28 USC 46(c) and the local court rules reflect the fact that there is a difference between deciding ,whether a court’s precedent should be re-visited en banc, and deciding the particular result in a given case.

        The way courts like the Federal Circuit are set up, panels create binding precedent for the rest of the court, even if other judges not on the panel might disagree with the result.

        Taking a case en banc tends to disrupt the structure of that appellate court system, and so, likely, the question of whether a given case should be re-visited en banc is reserved for the active judges only, who are charged with the overall direction and function of the court. Once the decision to take the case en banc is made, then the senior judges who participated on the panel can participate in the en banc proceeding to decide the particular issue.

        1. 3.1.2.1

          panels create binding precedent for the rest of the court, even if other judges not on the panel might disagree with the result.

          That has not exactly been followed too well of late – apparently, the CAFC has learned the scrivining tricks of the Supreme’s and can mash a wax nose “just because they feel like it.”

          The different panels themselves have become like the different circuits, and the “bubbling up” of inter-circuit splits now happens in one body since the judges do NOT follow earlier panel rulings that they don’t agree with.

        2. 3.1.2.2

          panels create binding precedent for the rest of the court, even if other judges not on the panel might disagree with the result.

          That has not exactly been followed too well of late – apparently, the CAFC has learned the scrivining tricks of the Supreme’s and can mash a wax nose “just because they feel like it.”

          The different panels themselves have become like the different circuits, and the “bubbling up” of inter-circuit splits now happens in one body since the judges do NOT follow earlier panel rulings that they don’t agree with.

          Something to keep in mind for those wanting to abolish the CAFC to drive “evolution” of case law.

  3. 2

    The court has now returned to its full panel of twelve regular status judges along with six senior-status judges.

    Yay! Welcome Judge Stoll!

  4. 1

    “lifetime appointment [and whose salary may not be reduced]”

    Why is this important?

    1. 1.1

      I give up, Ned. Why?

      For what it’s worth, I think it’s safe to say that Judge Stoll didn’t take this job for the money. What do they get, $200,000 or so (not counting all those Google perks – free web searching and email, etc.)?

      1. 1.1.1

        DanH, OK, then, let’s make judges stay in office, or have salaries, only so long as they please the president.

        That give you a clue, DanH?

        1. 1.1.1.1

          Sorry, Ned, I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Now you seem to be complaining about the “lifetime appointment” part. So, which part(s) of Article III do you want to amend, and why?

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            DanH, I am not complaining about the lifetime a appointment part. I think it’s absolutely necessary.

    2. 1.2

      Your “I know more than you young whippersnapper” attitude is really grating, dude.

      1. 1.2.1

        Mr. Gun, why do you think Dennis even made the point?

        There is a raging controversy in this country over judicial power. It has been raging since at least Northern Pipeline.

        And there is a very good reason, sir, why judges do no serve at the beck and call of the president. It is the reason why people have a right to a day in court before their patents can be revoked. It is founding principle of this government, a lesson learned from experience, a lesson that we so cheaply today throw into the trash can in the name of expediency.

        1. 1.2.1.1

          Ah.
          I didn’t read Dennis’s reference to “lifetime appointment” as a call to rebellion, Ned. I thought he was simply trying to add a little gravity to his announcement.

          1. 1.2.1.1.1

            Could be. But given will react in the debate about executive agencies versus courts, one can read something more into it.

            1. 1.2.1.1.1.1

              Ned,

              I wish to pony out to you (again) that the separation of powers doctrine is NOT just between the judicial and the executive branches.

              Your inability (purposeful perhaps) to see that the doctrine applies just as much to the patent law writing battle between the judicial and legislative branches greatly weakens your credibility.

              You cannot just apply the doctrine where it aligns with your causes and do a 180 with it when that aligns with your causes.

              Read again the O’Malley article that you yourself first linked to.

Comments are closed.