Tiffany P. Cunningham
How Judge Cunningham rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cunningham
Tiffany Patrice Cunningham is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Cunningham received a commission on August 6, 2021.
Judge Cunningham's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Cunningham'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 Cunningham decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Cunningham reversed the patent tribunal because Mylan compared the asserted prior-art reference with another reference rather than with the challenged patent.
“Because Mylan argued that de Gennes is analogous to another prior art reference and not the challenged patent, Mylan did not meet its burden to establish obviousness premised on de Gennes and the Board’s factual findings regarding analogousness are not supported by substantial evidence.”
At the patent-eligibility pleading stage, requires a specific proposed construction or identified factual issue rather than a generic request for claim construction or discovery.
“A patentee must do more than invoke a generic need for claim construction or discovery to avoid grant of a motion to dismiss under § 101.”
In Coda Development v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Cunningham rejected Coda's attempt to add specificity to its asserted trade secret through trial testimony and attorney argument after its earlier identification lacked sufficient detail.
“We reject Coda’s attempt to belatedly introduce additional specificity into the trade secret based on Mr. Hrabal’s trial testimony and attorney argument.”
Timestamped inventor records and documented law firm work explained the interval between conception and a patent filing, supporting reasonable diligence.
“Here, Valtrus accounted for the entire period during which diligence is required, including the disputed period, using timestamp evidence of the inventors and a law firm office collaborating in the United States to com- plete, execute, and file the application resulting in the ’704 patent.”
In a digital advertising patent appeal, Cunningham held that the representative claim lacked an inventive concept despite assertions of novelty in the specification and complaint.
“The specification and complaint do not change our conclusion that claim 1 does not contain an inventive concept.”
Procedural preferences
In CQV v. Merck Patent, Cunningham vacated the patent tribunal's decision because it discarded material, unrebutted evidence about when Sample C became publicly available without explaining why.
“CQV raised highly material and unrebutted evidence that Sample C would have been made available to the public within a few weeks of being placed into quality control, which the Board discarded without explanation.”
In her Range of Motion concurrence, Cunningham treated design-patent claim construction—including functionality-related subsidiary findings—as a judicial task that defines claim scope before the jury decides infringement.
“Furthermore, district courts should continue to decide claim construction and to define claim scope, including subsidiary factual determinations involving functionality.”
Cautions
In Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., she rejected the recusal challenge but vacated the patent tribunal’s ruling because it had not adequately considered evidence of copying.
“While we see no reversible error in the Board’s recusal analysis, we vacate the Board’s final written decision for failure to adequately consider evidence of copying and remand for further proceedings.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“we reverse the decision of the Court of Federal Claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“As explained below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court of Federal Claims.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board's final decision.”
“For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the district court's judgment.”
“For the above reasons, we vacate the Claims Court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“we vacate the district court's judgment of invalidity based on collateral estoppel as to the claims of the '844, '780, and '494 patents; we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement as to the asserted claims of the Downloadable Patents and the ARB Patent; and we affirm the district court's decision to exclude Finjan's expert apportionment analysis and the related damages opinions.”
“we reverse the grants of the government's motions for partial summary judgment and denials of Appellants' motions for partial summary judgment with respect to the twenty-eight parcels at issue and remand to the Court of Federal Claims for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Circuit judges do not carry a trial caseload; not enumerated.
Draft for Judge Cunningham with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cunningham, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cunningham's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace