Richard Linn
How Judge Linn rules, drawn from 45 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Linn
Richard Linn is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Linn received a commission on November 22, 1999. Judge Linn assumed senior status on October 31, 2012.
Judge Linn's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Linn'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 Linn decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He grounds patent claim construction in the intrinsic record, giving an undefined claim term its ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill and declining to broaden a term absent notice in the specification or prosecution history that the inventor intended a broader meaning.
“a claim term should not be read to encompass a broader definition in the absence of something in the written description and/or prosecution history to provide explicit or implicit notice to the public -- i.e., those of ordinary skill in the art -- that the inventor intended a disputed term to cover more than the ordinary and customary meaning revealed by the context of the intrinsic record.”
He insists that anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element arranged or combined the same way as in the claim, refusing to let a fact-finder assemble a claimed invention by picking and combining separate teachings within one document: differences, however slight, go to obviousness, not anticipation.
“unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102.”
Procedural preferences
In Z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., he affirmed the denial of Microsoft's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law because substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict on anticipation.
“Because substantial evidence supports the jury verdict, we affirm the district court's denial of Microsoft's motion for JMOL of invalidity by anticipation.”
In Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., Linn placed the burden of persuasion on the declaratory-judgment plaintiff because its license barred an infringement counterclaim and it alone sought relief from the court.
“Because the declaratory judgment plaintiff is the only party seeking the aid of the court in the circumstances presented here, that party must bear the burden of persuasion.”
In Jaquay's veterans-benefits appeal, he held that a reconsideration request sent to the regional office where the claim originated equitably tolled the judicial appeal period, and reversed the dismissal as untimely.
“Because Jaquay's misfiled request for reconsideration with the VA regional office (‘VARO’) from which his claim originated equitably tolled the judicial appeal period for filing his notice of appeal to the Veterans Court, the Veterans Court’s dismissal is reversed, and the case is remanded.”
Cautions
He tests the written-description requirement against the four corners of the specification, holding that a disclosure teaching one configuration does not convey possession of an undisclosed alternative, even one the disclosure might render obvious.
“The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, see Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571, but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification ...”
He requires a party attacking a patent to carry its statutory burden with the demanding proof the law assigns, holding that an interference-context rule for resolving a range of possible invention dates does not displace the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard needed to invalidate an issued patent.
“Evidence establishing that there might have been a prior conception is not sufficient to meet the clear and convincing burden needed to invalidate a patent.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because substantial evidence supports the Commission's holding that all asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description, we affirm.”
“The judgment that claims 11 and 12 of the '890 patent are invalid is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”
“Because Carsem failed to prove prior invention in the United States by clear and convincing evidence, this court reverses the Commission’s determination that the ’277 Patent is invalid under § 102(g)(2).”
“Because the district court abused its discretion by awarding fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, we reverse.”
“Because the mandate rule forecloses the relief that Becton seeks, we affirm.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are dismissed.”
“For the reasons set forth below, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand.”
“Because the plaintiffs failed to allege that the Taiwanese company purposefully directed any activities beyond merely sending notice letters at residents of the forum and that the declaratory judgment action arose out of or related to those activities, we affirm the district court's dismissal of all claims for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“Because the Board erred in construing the means-plus-function limitation of claims 11 and 21 and because there is no permissible construction, this court affirms the rejection of claims 11 and 21 on the alternative ground of failure to satisfy the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 ...”
“AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED”
Draft for Judge Linn with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Linn, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Linn's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace