Kimberly A. Moore
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 construing patent claims she gives primacy to the intrinsic record -- the claim language, the written description, and the prosecution history -- and treats a term's ordinary meaning as controlling unless the intrinsic evidence clearly supplies a special one; she will not let extrinsic dictionaries or expert testimony narrow a meaning that the intrinsic evidence already makes clear.
“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.”
Procedural preferences
Reviewing agency decisions -- whether from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the International Trade Commission, or the Commerce Department -- she applies the deferential substantial-evidence standard to fact findings while reviewing legal conclusions de novo, upholding reasonable agency gap-filling but reversing where a finding rests on no evidence a rational decisionmaker could credit.
“Because substantial evi- dence supports the Commission's findings, we affirm.”
On patent-eligibility challenges brought at the pleading stage she treats Section 101 as often turning on underlying factual questions: where the complaint and the patent's own specification plausibly allege that a claimed arrangement is an inventive concept not shown to be well-understood, routine, or conventional, eligibility cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss.
“We hold only that there are plausible factual allegations that the claims include inventive concepts, and that is enough to preclude dismissal.”
Cautions
She holds the party carrying the burden to real proof: a functional genus claim must be matched by a specification that enables its full scope, and a damages theory resting on the entire value of a multi-component product must be supported by evidence that the patented feature actually drives customer demand, not by conclusory expert say-so.
“There is simply no evidence at all that the patented features drove customer demand or substantially created the value of the entire slicing lines.”
She enforces the trial court's evidentiary-gatekeeping and disclosure rules with real bite: expert testimony served after the close of discovery, or untethered from the court's own claim constructions, should be excluded, and admitting it can require a new trial even after a jury verdict.
“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”
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.”
Put Judge Moore's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Moore actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Moore's own signed orders and cites them.