Evan Jonathan Wallach

How Judge Wallach rules, drawn from 46 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
2011-11-18
Education
University of Arizona (B.A., 1973); University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (J.D., 1976); University of Cambridge, Hughes Hall (LL.B. in International Law, with honors, 1981)
Signed orders read
46

How Judge Wallach decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

When the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction, he vacates and remands for dismissal instead of reaching the merits.

“Because the CIT did not have jurisdiction over the case, this court vacates and remands with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”

Customs classification begins with the text of the tariff headings and their section or chapter notes under the General Rules of Interpretation.

“The classification analysis always begins with GRI 1, which directs that ‘classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.’”

For patent standing, he looks to whether an assignment transferred all substantial rights and does not allow later formalities to cure a plaintiff's lack of patentee status when suit began.

“Accordingly, we hold that Diamond is not a ‘patentee’ under 35 U.S.C. § 281.”

He gives effect to a specific statutory exception over a general timing rule and rejects legislative-history arguments that cannot overcome the enacted text.

“Performance’s maximalist reading of § 1504(a)(2)(A) is unpersuasive. Ostensibly drawn from legislative history, Performance’s argument is contradicted by the text of § 1504(a)(2)(A)’s carveout of ‘[e]xcept as provided in subparagraph (B).’”

In exceptional-case fee review, he requires the trial court to consider both the manner of litigation and the broader context rather than isolating the merits of a single claim.

“The District Court clearly erred by failing to address ECT’s manner of litigation and the broader context of ECT’s lawsuit against ShoppersChoice.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC
677 F.3d 1361 · 2012-05-07
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“We vacate the district court's judgment of noninfringement and remand for further proceedings based on this court's interpretation of the 'system memory means,' 'matching,' and 'automated exchange.'”

In re Doron Adler
723 F.3d 1322 · 2013-07-18
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Because the Board did not err in rejecting the pending claims as obvious over Meron in view of Hirata and did not rely on new grounds for rejection, the Board is AFFIRMED.”

The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.
700 F.3d 1300 · 2012-11-28
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“For the above mentioned reasons, we vacate the district court's decision that the entire '130 patent is invalid, but uphold the district court's finding of invalidity of claims 1 and 19 under Sec. 102(g).”

Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc.
853 F.3d 1289 · 2017-04-04
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Final Written Decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board are AFFIRMED.”

Elbit Systems of America, LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc.
881 F.3d 1354 · 2018-02-06
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the Final Written Decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.”

Diamond Coating Technologies, LLC v. Hyundai Motor America
823 F.3d 615 · 2016-05-17
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the decisions of the United States District Court for the Central District of California are AFFIRMED.”

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC
928 F.3d 1359 · 2019-07-10
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“We vacate and remand.”

Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.
935 F.3d 1370 · 2019-08-29
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the Opinion and Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is AFFIRMED.”

Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC
963 F.3d 1371 · 2020-07-01
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the District Court's Attorney Fee Order and remand for further proceedings.”

Shell Oil Co. v. United States
688 F.3d 1376 · 2012-08-14
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, we affirm the CIT's decision sustaining Customs's denial of Shell's protests.”

Best Key Textiles Co. Ltd. v. United States
777 F.3d 1356 · 2015-02-03
Appeal (appellant) Moot / procedural

“Because the CIT did not have jurisdiction over the case, this court vacates and remands with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”

Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. v. United States
776 F.3d 1351 · 2015-01-21
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Therefore, Yuanda's curtain wall units meet the definition of the subject aluminum extrusions. Accordingly, the decision of the CIT is AFFIRMED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Circuit judges do not carry a trial caseload; not enumerated.

Draft for Judge Wallach with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wallach, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Wallach's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace