Evan Jonathan Wallach
How Judge Wallach rules, drawn from 47 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wallach
Evan Jonathan Wallach is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Wallach received a commission on November 18, 2011. Judge Wallach previously served on the United States Court of International Trade, commissioned there on August 14, 1995. Judge Wallach assumed senior status on May 31, 2021.
Judge Wallach's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Wallach's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Wallach decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Best Key Textiles v. United States, he held that the Court of International Trade lacked jurisdiction and vacated its decision with instructions to dismiss the case.
“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.’”
In Diamond Coating Technologies v. Hyundai Motor America, he held that Diamond was not a patentee under § 281; later agreements could not cure its lack of patentee status when it filed suit.
“Accordingly, we hold that Diamond is not a ‘patentee’ under 35 U.S.C. § 281.”
In Performance Additives v. United States, he rejected the claimant's reading of § 1504 because it conflicted with a statutory exception and affirmed the trade court's judgment.
“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 Electronic Communication Technologies v. ShoppersChoice, he found clear error in the district court's failure to consider the plaintiff's manner of litigation and the broader context of the suit when reviewing attorney fees.
“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.
“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.’”
“We also affirm the district court’s denial of CBOE’s motions for leave to amend the Complaint.”
“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.”
“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 § 102(g).”
“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.”
“Accordingly, the Final Written Decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.”
“Accordingly, the decisions of the United States District Court for the Central District of California are AFFIRMED.”
“Accordingly, the Opinion and Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the District Court's Attorney Fee Order and remand for further proceedings.”
“Accordingly, we affirm the CIT's decision sustaining Customs's denial of Shell's protests.”
“Because the CIT did not have jurisdiction over the case, this court vacates and remands with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
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