Randall Ray Rader
Judge Rader no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Rader decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He anchors claim construction in the ordinary meaning of the claim words, holding that absent an inventor's express intent to give a term a special meaning, the term carries its ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art.
“Without an express intent to impart a novel meaning to claim terms, an inventor’s claim terms take on their ordinary meaning.”
He applies the written-description requirement as a possession test measured from the filing date, asking whether the specification shows the inventor had the claimed invention in hand when the application was filed.
“Compliance with § 112 requires sufficient information in the specification to show that the inventor possessed the invention at the time of that original disclosure.”
Procedural preferences
He insists that the obviousness analysis guard against hindsight, treating objective indicia of nonobviousness as essential evidence that a court must weigh rather than a mere afterthought.
“Obviousness requires a court to walk a tightrope blindfolded (to avoid hindsight) — an enterprise best pursued with the safety net of objective evidence.”
Cautions
He enforces a strict, identity-based standard for inherent anticipation, holding that a missing claim limitation is inherently disclosed only when it is necessarily present in the prior art, not merely probable or possible.
“Inherent anticipation requires that the missing descriptive material is “necessarily present,” not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.”
He limits the doctrine of equivalents to preserve the public-notice function of claims, declining to let equivalents erase clear structural limitations and reduce claims to functional abstractions the public cannot rely on.
“If it were otherwise, then claims would be reduced to functional abstracts, devoid of meaningful structural limitations on which the public could rely.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“This court reverses.”
“AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, and REMANDED.”
“In light of Shorty’s virtual admission of infringement, this court affirms the district court’s summary judgment.”
“AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED.”
“Therefore, this court reverses and remands with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict.”
“Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice and awarding attorney fees and costs, and because Meter Treater untimely objected to the award, this court affirms.”
“AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED and REMANDED IN PART.”
“a proper claim interpretation still compels this court to affirm the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement and vacate the holding concerning marking.”
“AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED.”
“Because all claims of Thermalloy’s patent were impermissibly broadened during reexamination, this court affirms.”
“this court affirms the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement on all three patents.”
“Because the record contains substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdicts of no anticipation and sufficient written description, this court affirms the district court’s denial of JMOL.”
A historical record
Judge Rader 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.