Sharon Prost
How Judge Prost rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Prost
Sharon Prost is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Prost received a commission on September 24, 2001.
Judge Prost's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Prost'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 Prost decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In PersonalWeb Technologies v. Google, she held that the asserted claims concerning content-based identifiers were patent-ineligible and affirmed the judgment of invalidity.
“The claims are ineligible for patenting. We therefore affirm the judgment of invalidity.”
In Intel v. PACT XPP Schweiz, she reversed part of the patent board's obviousness analysis and remanded because the board had not analyzed claim 5's invention as a whole.
“For the foregoing reasons, we re- verse the Board’s findings related to the above-discussed limitations (which appear in claim 5 by virtue of its depend- ence from claim 4) and remand for further proceedings con- sistent with this opinion.”
Procedural preferences
In Fintiv v. PayPal, she held that the payment-handler claim terms were indefinite because the patent specifications lacked adequate corresponding structure, and affirmed the judgment.
“We have considered Fintiv’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.”
In Intellectual Tech v. Zebra Technologies, she held that an unexercised option under a security agreement had not stripped the patent owner of all exclusionary rights, and reversed the standing dismissal.
“Because IT has constitutional standing, we reverse and remand.”
Cautions
In Provisur Technologies v. Weber, Prost vacated part of a Board decision because the Board mischaracterized the patent owner’s arguments and had not adequately explained its treatment of the disputed surface-area limitations.
“The Board’s adoption of Weber’s argument and evidence, coupled with its mischaracterization of Provisur’s arguments, precludes us from engaging in meaningful appellate review and, therefore, violates the APA.”
In Inland Diamond Products v. Cherry Optical, she vacated a district court judgment that gave preclusive effect to patent board findings made under a lower burden of proof.
“We have considered Cherry’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We have considered Fintiv’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.”
“We have considered Cherry’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand.”
“We vacate and remand the district court’s determination of nonobviousness for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the court’s determination on indefiniteness.”
“The claims are ineligible for patenting. We therefore affirm the judgment of invalidity.”
“For the reasons above, we affirm the district court’s judgment awarding attorneys’ fees.”
“We have considered Bot M8’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we re- verse the Board’s findings related to the above-discussed limitations (which appear in claim 5 by virtue of its depend- ence from claim 4) and remand for further proceedings con- sistent with this opinion.”
“For the reasons set forth above, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand this case to the Board for the limited purpose of addressing the surface-area limitations of claims 1, 9, and 13.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s holding that claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 of the ’431 patent are unpatentable and claims 11 and 13 were not shown to be unpatentable.”
“we affirm the Board’s determination that claims 1–7, 10–20, 23–26 of the ’765 patent, claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, 18–20, 23–30 of the ’142 patent, and claims 1–10, 12–14, 16–28, 30–32, and 34–37 of the ’007 patent are unpatentable. We reverse the Board’s determination that claims 4 and 17 of the ’142 patent and claims 11 and 29 of the ’007 patent are not unpatentable.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s conclusion that claims 7–13 and 17 are unpatentable.”
“We affirm the Board’s claim construction and decision as to claims 6, 17–19, and 21. We vacate the Board’s determination as to substitute claims 27, 28, and 31 and remand for further proceedings.”
Draft for Judge Prost with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Prost, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Prost's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace