Timothy B. Dyk
How Judge Dyk rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dyk
Timothy B. Dyk is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Dyk received a commission on May 25, 2000.
Judge Dyk's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Dyk'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 Dyk decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Merck, Dyk held that a patent-term extension for a reissued patent used the original patent’s issue date because section 156(c) referred to the original patent.
“‘the patent’ in subsection 156(c) is to the original patent.”
In Recentive, Dyk affirmed dismissal of machine-learning patent claims because applying a generic technique in a new field did not make the asserted abstract idea patent eligible.
“We have long recognized that ‘[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment.’”
In reviewing a trademark refusal, Dyk required the agency board to articulate a coherent failure-to-function standard rather than rely on intuition. Inconsistent past treatment and an unexplained evidentiary threshold prevented reasoned review even for a widely used expression.
“The Board’s reasoning sounds in fact very much as though it has taken an ‘I know it when I see it’ approach to failure-to-function refusals.”
In King, Dyk assessed pension-benefit reductions under regulatory takings law by asking what the plaintiffs should objectively have anticipated in light of the industry’s regulation and prior legislation.
“expectations, we apply ‘an objective . . . inquiry into what,”
Procedural preferences
In Sanho, Dyk held that an argument about a Kickstarter campaign was forfeited when the party first raised it in its reply brief.
“any argument that the Kickstarter campaign further disclosed the subject matter of the sale is forfeited because it was not raised in the opening brief.”
Dyk tested each asserted trade secret and confidentiality theory before allowing willfulness findings, royalties, exemplary damages, or an injunction to stand. Remedies dependent on misappropriation fall with the underlying proof that the information was legally protectable and contractually confidential.
“holding that no trade secrets were misappropriated, we vacate the district court’s finding of willful and malicious misappropriation, the reasonable royalty award”
Cautions
In Ravin, Dyk dismissed a veteran’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because a remand for clarification did not give the veteran a colorable right to a decision without remand.
“In light of our decisions in Chavez and Adams, there can no longer be a colorable ar- gument here that remands for clarification are improper or that Mr. Ravin is entitled to a decision without remand. We therefore lack jurisdiction.”
In JTEKT, Dyk dismissed an inter partes review petitioner’s appeal for lack of Article III standing because its asserted risk of an infringement suit was too speculative.
“Because JTEKT lacks standing to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.”
In a patent-damages appeal, Dyk would not replace the royalty theory actually tried with a different causation theory that might have supported foreign-sales recovery. The jury instructions and verdict theory must preserve the legally valid route to the requested damages.
“We cannot reform the damages theory actually presented to the jury in favor of an alternative that was not, even if the alternative would have been legally valid.”
In a trade-secret case, Dyk treated generalized subjective testimony as insufficient to overcome objective evidence that the claimant knew or should have known the facts supporting misappropriation before the limitations cutoff. A plaintiff should document specific discovery facts and plead any concealment theory expressly.
“such generalized, conclusory testimony reflecting the subjective view of the witness (the opinion or ‘thinking’ of the witness) is insufficient evidence to support the verdict.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We vacate the judgment. We conclude that the as- serted claims are abstract at step one of the Alice analysis and that further proceedings on remand are required as to step two.”
“We thus affirm the district court’s holding that the PTO correctly calculated the RE’733 patent’s PTE.”
“We affirm the Board’s determination that claims 1–3 and 5–7 are unpatentable and reverse the Board’s determina- tion that claim 4 is not unpatentable.”
“We accordingly affirm as to Shockwave’s direct appeal and re- verse as to CSI’s cross-appeal.”
“We reverse, vacate, and re- mand.”
“We reject many of Mr. Brunetti’s arguments but nonetheless con- clude that the decision of the Board lacks sufficient clarity, and, accordingly, we vacate and remand for further pro- ceedings.”
“We vacate and remand.”
“We affirm the judgment of invalidity as to the asserted claims of the ’320 patent and the award of attorney’s fees. We also affirm the judgment of infringement as to the asserted claims of the ’855 patent.”
“We affirm the judgment of no in- validity, affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand the judgment as to direct infringement. We va- cate and remand for a new trial on indirect infringement, compensatory damages, willful infringement, enhanced damages, and attorney’s fees.”
“The district court granted the PTO’s motion to dismiss, and Odyssey appealed. We affirm.”
Draft for Judge Dyk with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dyk, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dyk's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace