Source: http://www.717madisonplace.com/?m=201808
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:53:17+00:00

Document:
Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Nos. 57564, 57752, Administrative Judge Elizabeth W. Newsom, Administrative Judge Mark N. Stempler, Administrative Judge Owen C. Wilson, Admin- istrative Judge Richard Shackleford.
However, in appeals from some other tribunals, the names of the administrative judges are not recited in the caption. This appears to be the case for ITC and PTAB appeals.
The first question, i.e., whether software may be a “component” of a patented invention under § 271(f), was answered in the affirmative in Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed.Cir.2005), which issued while the instant appeal was pending. In that case, we held that “[w]ithout question, software code alone qualifies as an invention eligible for patenting,” and that the “statutory language did not limit section 271(f) to patented `machines’ or patented `physical structures,'” such that software could very well be a “component” of a patented invention for the purposes of § 271(f). Id. at 1339.
AT & T CORP. v. Microsoft Corp., 414 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(Judge Lourie writing for the court), cert. granted 127 S.Ct. 467 (U.S. 2006) and judgment rev’d on other grounds, 127 S.Ct. 1746 (U.S. 2007).
Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
During the oral argument of PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. Amazon. com, Inc., No. 2017-1441 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2018), the Federal Circuit seemed rather receptive of Amazon’s color coded brief reflecting the evolution of a claim during prosecution.
You can see the brief [here].
I was wondering to myself how panel stacking and panel manipulation would be viewed under the canons of judicial ethics. The uscourts.gov site has a good link to the Code of Conduct for US Judges. It is available [here].
Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law.
The Canons are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law, and in the context of all relevant circumstances. The Code is to be construed so it does not impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.
The Code is designed to provide guidance to judges and nominees for judicial office. It may also provide standards of conduct for application in proceedings under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), 351-364). Not every violation of the Code should lead to disciplinary action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline, should be determined through a reasonable application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the improper activity, the intent of the judge, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system. Many of the restrictions in the Code are necessarily cast in general terms, and judges may reasonably differ in their interpretation. Furthermore, the Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. Finally, the Code is not intended to be used for tactical advantage.
The Federal Circuit will be hearing some of its oral arguments in Chicago in October. You can see more information about the Chicago visit at this [link].
Judge Dyk has apparently been loaned out to the U.S.District Court of Delaware where he is sitting by designation. You might have noticed that he did not hear oral arguments at the Federal Circuit in August — nor in July if I remember correctly.
You can read Judge Dyk’s recent district court opinion and order in BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC., Civil Action No. 17-509-TBD (D. Del. Aug. 7, 2018) at this [link].
I suppose it is somewhat fun for appellate judges to be fact finders in district court bench trials — fact finding expeditions are not something they have an opportunity to do at the appellate level . . . .
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
You are currently browsing the 717 Madison Place blog archives for August, 2018.

References: § 271
 v. 
 § 271
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.