Richard G. Taranto
How Judge Taranto rules, drawn from 51 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Taranto
Richard Gary Taranto is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Taranto received a commission on March 12, 2013.
Judge Taranto's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Taranto'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 Taranto decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On obviousness he demands more than a bare showing that references could be juxtaposed: the question is whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine them, and a reference counts for everything it teaches, not only its preferred embodiment. A motivation-to-combine finding must rest on an explicit, evidence-supported explanation.
“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”
In claim construction he reads the limitations of a claim as cumulative requirements that must all be satisfied, not as a menu of options, and he will not find a claim contradictory or indefinite where it is possible to meet two separate limitations at once. Plain claim language controls unless the specification clearly disclaims or redefines it.
“Claim limitations do not grant options. They state requirements—conditions that must be met for a product or process (as the case may be) to come within the claim’s protected zone of exclusivity. If there are two requirements, and it is possible to meet both, there is no contradiction.”
An express definition in the specification controls unless other intrinsic evidence is sufficiently decisive to displace it; a less clear prosecution-history statement does not override the definition.
“Though the prosecution history comes closest to suggesting that Alnylam understood a branched alkyl to include a secondary carbon, we conclude that it is not sufficiently decisive to override the definition set forth in column 412.”
A court may correct an evident patent drafting error when the intrinsic record leaves one unique, logically necessary correction rather than several debatable alternatives.
“we conclude that the correction of ‘second’ to ‘first’ is the unique correction that captures the claim scope a reasonable relevant reader would understand was meant based on the claim language and specification.”
Procedural preferences
In Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl, Taranto vacated and remanded because the Board’s explanation was too opaque for review and the court could not supply a rationale the Board had not given.
“we will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned, but we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given.”
In Gurley v. McDonough, he held that § 5313 limited compensation for a period of incarceration without requiring the agency to make its reduction decision before that period ended.
“The only temporal aspect of the provision is one that addresses the period ‘for’ which the veteran is to receive benefits. The provision does not use language that addresses the time at which VA must make its reduction decision.”
When Congress imposes an information-seeking duty, an agency may have to develop a sparse record before deciding a claim, especially where missing third-party evidence could determine the outcome.
“In the particular circumstances of this case, the Bureau had a duty to seek this information, but it did not.”
Cautions
In Dell v. Acceleron, he vacated a patent board ruling that relied on a factual assertion first raised at oral argument, after Acceleron had no fair opportunity to respond.
“the Board denied Acceleron its procedural rights by relying in its decision on a factual assertion introduced into the proceeding only at oral argument, after Acceleron could meaningfully respond.”
In PersonalWeb Technologies v. Apple, Taranto vacated an obviousness ruling because the Board explained only that two references could be combined, without explaining why a skilled artisan would select and combine them.
“that reasoning seems to say no more than that a skilled artisan, once presented with the two references, would have understood that they could be combined. And that is not enough: it does not imply a motivation to pick out those two references and combine them to arrive at the claimed invention.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, while we affirm the Board’s claim construction, we vacate the Board’s Final Written Decision regarding obviousness of the appealed claims and remand for further proceedings.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s final written decision in IPR2013-507, invalidating claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19–28 and upholding claim 18. We vacate the Board’s decision in IPR2013-508 and remand for further proceedings regarding claims 16 and 17 in accordance with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s construction and obviousness determinations for claims 1, 6, 8, 20, and 24. We vacate the Board’s denial of the motion to amend, and remand the case for the Board to address the patentability of proposed substitute claims 26 and 27.”
“We reverse the Board’s construction and cancellation of claim 7 of the ’343 patent. We affirm the Board’s cancellation of all other claims at issue in the ’598 and ’343 patents.”
“we affirm the Board’s upholding of claims 14–17 and 34–36; vacate the Board’s cancellation of claim 20 and remand for consideration of that claim under the proper construction; and vacate the Board’s cancellation of claim 3 and remand for appropriate proceedings on that claim.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand for further proceedings.”
“we affirm the Board’s determinations that claims 1–4 of the ’503 patent would have been obvious, reverse the Board’s determination that claims 5 and 6 would not have been obvious, and affirm the Board’s denial of Belden’s motion to exclude.”
“the Board’s decision on the ’188 patent is reversed in part and vacated in part, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Board’s decision on the ’822 patent is affirmed.”
“REVERSED AND REMANDED”
Draft for Judge Taranto with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Taranto, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Taranto's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace