Pauline Newman
How Judge Newman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In claim construction she anchors the meaning of a claim term to the invention actually described and prosecuted: where the specification and prosecution history define a term with specificity and the applicant disclaimed a broader reading to overcome prior art, the claim carries that narrower scope and cannot be stretched to cover what was given up.
“The words of patent claims have the meaning and scope with which they are used in the specification and the prosecution history.”
On obviousness she holds the challenger to its statutory burden across the whole record: an invalidity attack fails where no reference teaches the claimed element and objective indicia point the other way, and a court may not fill that gap with hindsight.
“On the entirety of the record, Actavis did not establish obviousness by clear and convincing evidence.”
Procedural preferences
She requires a live case and a party with standing before reaching the merits: when an appellant abandons the activity that created its stake, both standing and any continuing injury fall away and the appeal is dismissed rather than decided.
“Momenta does not have standing to invoke federal appellant jurisdiction, and the appeal is mooted by Momenta’s discontinuance of any potentially infringing activity.”
She insists that agency findings rest on record evidence rather than mere possibility: the abstract chance that a product could have been developed independently is not itself evidence that it was, so a finding to that effect cannot stand on substantial-evidence review.
“However, that the post-Consent Order products could have been independently developed is not evidence of independent development itself.”
Cautions
She reads a statutory exemption to its stated purpose rather than as a blanket shield: the patent safe harbor covers only uses reasonably related to developing information for regulatory approval, so uses outside that purpose must be examined individually and are not exempt merely because approval was pending.
“However, Roche’s uses of imported EPO unrelated to obtaining FDA approval are not shielded by the exemption.”
In benefits cases she treats eligibility as fixed by the governing statute: who may receive a deceased veteran's accrued benefits is limited to the persons and purposes Congress specified, and a fiduciary has no authority to collect them for others.
“We conclude that the Secretary correctly interpreted the statute, and that the veteran’s fiduciary does not have standing or authority to receive accrued benefits that were unpaid at the veteran’s death, other than in accordance with payments as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a), to designated family members or for reimbursement of the expenses of last sickness and burial.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We conclude that the Secretary correctly interpreted the statute, and that the veteran’s fiduciary does not have standing or authority to receive accrued benefits that were unpaid at the veteran’s death, other than in accordance with payments as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a), to designated family members or for reimbursement of the expenses of last sickness and burial. AFFIRMED”
“The procedure set forth in Fast Letter 07-19, and as continued in Fast Letter 08-24, is set aside. GRANTED”
“The dismissal is reversed; we remand for application of these statutory principles to the agreement between attorney Carpenter and veteran Bowyer. REVERSED AND REMANDED”
“The judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is affirmed. AFFIRMED.”
“On the issue of law presented, the judgment is AFFIRMED.”
“The appeal is DISMISSED. No costs.”
“We affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that the “entitled to receive” provision of § 1311(a)(2) requires de novo determination of the veteran’s disability, upon the entirety of the record including any new evidence presented by the surviving spouse. AFFIRMED”
“AFFIRMED No costs.”
“The decision is affirmed. AFFIRMED No costs.”
“The dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is vacated, and the cause is remanded for review of the factual merits of the appeal. VACATED AND REMANDED.”
“The determination that uPI did not violate the Consent Order with respect to post-Consent Order products is reversed. We remand for further proceedings with respect to violation of the Consent Order. AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED”
“AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED”
Put Judge Newman's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Newman actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Newman's own signed orders and cites them.