About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Supreme Court Decides Amgen v. Sanofi; Status Quo Extended | Main | The Quest for an "Artificial Intelligence" Inventor »

May 21, 2023

Comments

These orders are all public record now. It might be useful if you linked to them so that people can read them rather than rely on the Complaint's description of what they say. The latest order, especially, is troubling, and contradicts many assertions in the Complaint. I find this whole situation pretty sad.

Members of our profession should express support for Judge Newman, whom I have met several times at AIPLA and other meetings, on the grounds of her highly pertinent legal and technical background, the excellence of many opinions that she has written and her length of service with the Court.

I comment as one who clerked for Judge Newman in the '80's and have remained in contact with her until today. It is time for the Judicial Conference of the Federal Circuit to put a stop to this nonsense, or at least insist that it be transferred to another circuit. The affair is damaging the respect that members of the bar and others have had for the court (and for our judicial system generally). Further, while a person of 96 years may be less physically capable than one of 60, there is no basis for "special panel's" position that Judge Newman is not able to perform her duties as an Article III judge because of lack of mental or physical ability to do so. She remains very sharp, and the court is depriving the public of her services on the court. Finally, Judge Newman has devoted her life to the court and to the improvement of the U.S. patent system. How can her court take such action now? It's just very unfair to do so to such a person.

It is appropriate to point out that Judge Newman has the same age as our late Queen Elizabeth. If you saw her greeting Liz Truss just before she died, you would be in no doubt that her mental facilities were entirely intact, and I have seen no reports to the contrary. The mental and physical ability of our late queen make it credible that the abilities of Judge Newman are similarly intact.

Further to the last posting, it is worth visiting You Tube to see the tea party which the Queen held for Paddington Bear. Her alertness and mental abilities are obvious - similarly I expect for Judge Newman.

The comments of Court Watcher bear a striking similarity to other comments by putative litigators who inexorably want to take accusations as gospel truth, and look no further.

There is another important legal maxim to keep in mind: innocent until proven guilty.

Those displeased with Judge Newman and wanted her gone based on accusations should probably pause and reconsider.

Will they (especially given the number of forums and narrow alignment to script that the anti-Newman stance has taken)?

Call me:


Judge Newman makes a compelling case in her own defense. Bravo. As an administrative matter, simple probity demands the case be moved to another venue.

It is absurd to think that Judge Newman's colleagues - the ones seeking her removal - are also the ones on the panel investigating the allegations against her. That those judges do not see how obviously corrupt such a situation is calls into question their own fitness to serve as judges; that Judge Moore has let the matter get this far within her own court calls into question her fitness to serve as Chief Judge. For the judges own sakes, as well as for the sake of the CAFC, the matter should be transferred to a different court, so that the investigators do not themselves have a stake in the outcome.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30