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

« American Axle's Claims Found Eligible on Remand | Main | In re Theripion (Fed. Cir. 2023) »

August 06, 2023

Comments

Honestly, with all the ridiculous stuff going on now with the courts, I have no idea if this is legit or another hit job. Anyone know?

Am I reading the same documents as everyone else?

Judging by the reaction in the legal press and blogosphere, the overwhelming view seems to be that this is the result of other judges (Moore?) and/or some sort of nefarious industry lobby out to "get" Judge Moore as a result of personal disagreements or annoyance at her frequent dissents.

Reading the documents appended to the Order, however - which include a huge number of affidavits given under oath, and largely unredacted email correspondence - the picture that comes across to me is of someone very sadly in the grip of severe dementia, who is unwilling or unable to recognise that fact. All of the characteristic behaviors are there, plain for everyone to see, unless those affidavits are wilfully false.

Judge Pauline Newman is 96 years old. Old Judges need to be treated like ordinary people and not like monarchs. The legal system needs to install a mandatory retirement age for All Judges.

At the least, isn't Chief Judge Moore also a witness (as demonstrated by inclusion of her email correspondence with Judge Newman about the judicial assistant position (page 200 of the Report))? So for that very reason shouldn't another court have been handling this already? The affidavits from staff seem to reflect some loss of cognitive function by Judge Newman (tragically), yet the Court's insistence on being involved in the proceedings only further confuse the issues and cast doubt on their fairness. If this is how they treat an honored colleague who is apparently in decline, how can any litigant have faith in a process they oversee?

The doctor who provided the results of his neurological and psychological examinations of Judge Newman has criticized the report; see:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/doctor-who-examined-96-year-old-judge-slams-suspension-report

All the public can review are the Judge's decisions and dissents, which show no evidence of impairment in how she performs the only duties relevant to her tenure on the bench.

How do we know that the decisions and dissents are actually Judge Newman's work to any significant degree?

The sworn affidavits annexed to the report and recommendation could be taken to suggest that much of the drafting is done by her law clerks, and that the significant delays in issuing her decisions/dissents are attributable to the delay in receiving her edits to those drafts.

I am not saying that this is definitely the case. I cannot know. But neither can anyone else, absent further information. Given the decline in cognitive function suggested by the other events recounted in the affidavits, it is unsafe to assume that "decision/dissent bearing Judge Newman's name" can be equated with "decision/dissent authored wholly or in large part BY Judge Newman".

Judge Newman and/or her clerks would need to be willing to give oral testimony under oath in order to clarify this one way or another. And not simply to invoke the Fifth Amendment in reply to every question.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 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 31