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 judge
Status
Senior status
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
June 15, 1987
Education
United States Military Academy (B.S., 1963); William & Mary Law School (J.D., 1971)
Signed orders read
48

About Judge Mayer

Haldane Robert Mayer is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Mayer received a commission on June 15, 1987. Judge Mayer assumed senior status on June 30, 2010.

Judge Mayer's practices and standing orders

The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Mayer'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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

How Judge Mayer decides

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

What persuades

In Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, Mayer reversed an infringement judgment because the district court misconstrued the “spring means” patent limitation and erred in denying judgment as a matter of law.

“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.”

In Merck & Cie v. Watson Laboratories, he treated Martin's fax stating price, delivery, and payment terms as a commercial offer for sale in the patent on-sale-bar dispute.

“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.”

In Uniloc 2017 v. Apple, he distinguished Uniloc's overbroad sealing request from the interests of third-party licensees, whose confidential information called for separate analysis.

“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
90-5040 · 1990-09-24
Appeal (appellant) Denied

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

Hills Materials Co. v. Rice
92-1257 · 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
92-5136 · 1993-10-27
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“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
95-3665 · 1996-05-16
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

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

Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher
96-1148 · 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
97-1446 · 1998-07-20
Appeal (appellant) Granted

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

Caldera v. J.S. Alberici Construction Co.
97-1531 · 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.
98-1380, 98-1447, 98-1472, 98-1534 · 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