Haldane Robert Mayer

How Judge Mayer rules, drawn from 48 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
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
1987-06-15
Education
United States Military Academy (B.S., 1963); William & Mary Law School (J.D., 1971)
Signed orders read
48

How Judge Mayer decides

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

What persuades

He treats the construction of a disputed patent limitation as potentially case-dispositive and will reverse a verdict when the governing construction cannot support it.

“Because we conclude that the district court incorrectly construed the ‘spring means’ limitation of the asserted claims and erred in denying Tyco’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (‘JMOL’), we reverse.”

He requires the patent appeals board to expose the reasoning supporting its decision so appellate review does not depend on guessing at the agency's theory.

“Under the APA, the board is obligated not only to come to a sound decision, but to fully and particularly set out the bases upon which it reached that decision.”

For the patent on-sale bar, he applies ordinary contract principles and treats a detailed communication containing essential commercial terms as an offer even without later formalities.

“Martin’s detailed fax—providing essential price, delivery, and payment terms—contained all the required elements to qualify as a commercial offer for sale.”

He begins preliminary-injunction review from the premise that the remedy is exceptional and must be justified rather than presumed.

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”

He distinguishes a litigant's overbroad sealing request from the interests of third parties whose confidential information appears in the record and requires separate consideration of those interests.

“Such third parties were not responsible for Uniloc’s filing of an overbroad sealing request.”

Signed rulings

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

Martinez v. United States
914 F.2d 1486 · 1990-09-24
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the judgment of the Claims Court is affirmed.”

Hills Materials Co. v. Rice
982 F.2d 514 · 1992-12-29
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Accordingly, the decision of the board is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

American Satellite Co. v. United States
998 F.2d 950 · 1993-10-27
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is reversed in-part and vacated in-part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Mintzmyer v. Department of the Interior
84 F.3d 419 · 1996-05-16
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“Accordingly, the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is affirmed.”

Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher
102 F.3d 1577 · 1996-12-19
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the decision of the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals is affirmed.”

New Zealand Lamb Co. v. United States
149 F.3d 1366 · 1998-07-20
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of International Trade is reversed.”

Caldera v. J.S. Alberici Construction Co.
153 F.3d 1381 · 1998-12-01
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the decision of the Army Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals’ judgment is affirmed.”

Connaught Laboratories, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham P.L.C.
98-1471 · 1999-01-25
Appeal (appellant) Moot / procedural

“Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”

Bell v. Office of Personnel Management
98-3240 · 1999-03-31
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted

“Accordingly, the decision of the board is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Diversey Lever, Inc. v. Ecolab, Inc.
191 F.3d 1350 · 1999-10-20
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is affirmed.”

Camargo Correa Metais, S.A. v. United States
99-1191, -1192 · 1999-12-21
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of International Trade is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell Inc.
00-1241 · 2001-02-05
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

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

Draft for Judge Mayer with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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