Kimberly A. Moore
How Judge Moore rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Moore
Kimberly Ann Moore is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Moore received a commission on September 8, 2006.
Judge Moore's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Moore'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 Moore decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Seabed Geosolutions v. Magseis, she vacated a patent board claim construction because the intrinsic evidence did not exclude gimbaled geophones from the claimed housing.
“The intrinsic evidence as a whole supports an interpre- tation of ‘geophone internally fixed within [the] housing’ that does not exclude gimbaled geophones. The Board erred in reaching a narrower interpretation.”
On obviousness she enforces the requirement of an actual, articulated reason to combine references: showing only that two known arrangements each existed in the prior art does not establish that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine them, and a conclusory expert assertion that a choice was 'known' is not substantial evidence.
“It does not suf- fice to meet the motivation to combine requirement to rec- ognize that two alternative arrangements such as an angular direction system using a single camera and a 3D coordinate system using two cameras were both known in the art.”
Patent damages remain case-specific: Moore permits a royalty base involving an unaccused product when the methodology measures the incremental benefit attributable to the claimed technology rather than expanding the patent monopoly.
“A reasonable royalty is not necessarily unreliable under Rule 702 because it uses a royalty base associated with an unaccused product.”
Procedural preferences
In Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology v. ITC, she affirmed the Commission's infringement and domestic industry findings because substantial evidence supported them.
“Because substantial evi- dence supports the Commission's findings, we affirm.”
In Cooperative Entertainment v. Kollective Technology, she reversed a pleading stage patent eligibility dismissal because plausible allegations of inventive concepts precluded dismissal at that stage.
“We hold only that there are plausible factual allegations that the claims include inventive concepts, and that is enough to preclude dismissal.”
In reviewing a sanctions and fee denial, Moore required an explanation detailed enough for appellate review. The panel vacated and remanded without deciding whether fees or sanctions were warranted.
“Because the court’s order provides insufficient detail to permit meaningful re- view, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.”
Cautions
In Provisur Technologies v. Weber, she held that the record lacked evidence that the patented features drove demand for entire slicing lines and ordered a new trial on damages.
“There is simply no evidence at all that the patented features drove customer demand or substantially created the value of the entire slicing lines.”
In Trudell Medical v. D R Burton Healthcare, she held that the district court should have excluded an expert's untimely noninfringement testimony and ordered a new trial.
“Under these circumstances, Dr. Collins' untimely re- port was neither harmless nor substantially justified. Ac- cordingly, the district court abused its discretion by failing to exclude Dr. Collins' testimony”
A challenger to amended patent claims must establish concrete appellate injury by connecting its planned product or conduct to the claims actually at issue; past threats and generalized intentions are not enough.
“Mr. London's declaration is insufficient to establish an injury in fact because, although it establishes that ironSource previously developed and released a product, it fails to demonstrate concrete plans to reintroduce this product with features that are implicated by the substitute claims at issue.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the following reasons, we af- firm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.”
“AFFIRMED”
“We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED”
“REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART”
“For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.”
“For the following reasons, we reverse.”
“For the following reasons, we affirm.”
“For the following reasons, we affirm.”
“AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART”
“AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED”
“For the following reasons, we reverse the JMOL for the '591 and '188 patents, affirm the JMOL for the '985 patent, reverse the conditional grant of a new trial on noninfringement, and vacate the conditional grant of a new trial on invalidity and damages.”
Draft for Judge Moore with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Moore, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Moore's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace