Jack Richard Miller
How Judge Miller rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Miller no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Miller decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
For product-by-process claims, he placed the evidentiary burden on applicants when the prior-art product appeared identical.
“Where a product-by-process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.”
A jury assessing patent obviousness must evaluate the invention as claimed; differences absent from the claim cannot preserve validity.
“The flaw in this argument is that the jury was not here required to evaluate the question of obviousness in light of the invention as claimed,”
Cautions
He treated the deadline for establishing appellate jurisdiction as strict and mandatory.
“By relying on date of receipt by his union representative, the petitioner was able to meet his burden of proving jurisdiction — a burden previously recognized as ‘strict’ and ‘mandatory’ by the Court of Claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.”
“AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART.”
“AFFIRMED.”
“AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.”
“REVERSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Not applicable to this circuit-court record.
A historical record
Judge Miller no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.