Kara Farnandez Stoll

How Judge Stoll rules, drawn from 45 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Position
Circuit judge
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
July 8, 2015
Education
Michigan State University (B.S., Electrical Engineering, 1991); Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 1997)
Signed orders read
45

About Judge Stoll

Kara Farnandez Stoll is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Stoll received a commission on July 8, 2015.

Judge Stoll's practices and standing orders

The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Stoll'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 ↗

Signed rulings

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

In re Man Machine Interface Technologies LLC
2015-1562 · 2016-04-19
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“For the reasons below, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.”

Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Company, Inc.
2015-1553 · 2016-04-19
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“For the reasons stated below, we vacate the judgment, affirm the court's exclusion of Coleman's expert, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Kyocera Solar, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission
2016-1348 · 2016-12-15
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Because we agree that the plain meaning of the statute forecloses Kyocera's proposed interpretation, we affirm.”

In re CSB-System International, Inc.
2015-1832 · 2016-08-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We conclude, however, that the Board's claim construction was correct even under the Phillips standard, and we affirm its rejection of all claims of the '953 patent as unpatentable over the prior art.”

In re JobDiva, Inc.
2015-1960 · 2016-12-12
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Because the Board must visit that question in the first instance, we vacate its decision and remand for further consideration.”

Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
2015-1129 · 2016-06-06
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Because the district court correctly construed the claim terms 'alias,' 'custom link,' 'custom linking relationship,' and 'link term,' we affirm.”

Purifoy v. Department of Veterans Affairs
2015-3196 · 2016-10-04
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted

“Because the Board's analysis improperly omitted relevant Douglas factors and discarded the AJ's credibility determinations without an adequate rationale, we vacate the Board's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Nutt v. United States
2015-5118 · 2016-09-12
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the reasons below, we affirm.”

Sullivan v. McDonald
2015-7076 · 2016-03-08
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Because the Veterans Court relied on the wrong legal standard in affirming the Board’s determination that the duty to assist was satisfied, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Murata Machinery USA v. Daifuku Co.
2015-2094 · 2016-08-01
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“Thus, we affirm the district court's order as it pertains to the stay, but vacate the order with respect to the preliminary injunction and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
2015-1853 · 2016-09-22
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Because we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that claims 2–5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 23, 26–30, and 34 of the ’695 patent are unpatentable, we affirm.”

In re Smith
2015-1664 · 2016-03-10
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Because the claims cover only the abstract idea of rules for playing a wagering game and use conventional steps of shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, we affirm.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

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

Draft for Judge Stoll with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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