William Curtis Bryson
How Judge Bryson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He construes patent claims from the intrinsic record, treating the specification as the primary guide to disputed claim language and holding that a construction which would exclude a described preferred embodiment is almost never correct.
“As this court has explained before, "a claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim 'is rarely, if ever, correct.'"”
He limits extrinsic evidence to a subordinate role, holding that where analysis of the intrinsic record resolves the meaning of a claim term, extrinsic evidence cannot be used to contradict the meaning so ascertained.
“Extrinsic evidence, however, cannot be used to alter a claim construction dictated by a proper analysis of the intrinsic evidence.”
Procedural preferences
He applies a demanding, evidence-specific standard to inequitable-conduct findings, requiring clear and convincing proof that deceptive intent is the single most reasonable inference and reversing intent findings resting only on a party's supervisory role and circumstantial inference.
“In light of the high standard of proof required to establish the intent prong of inequitable conduct, we conclude that the evidence of Mr. Colvin's role in supervising the litigation was not sufficient under the circumstances to establish that he was familiar with the 2006 declarations.”
He enforces the summary-judgment burden strictly, holding that general characterizations and conclusory expert assertions do not create a genuine issue of material fact and that a non-movant must point to specific evidence.
“On-Line's general characterizations do not satisfy the requirement that it point to specific evidence sufficient to create a disputed issue of material fact.”
Cautions
He reads specialized-jurisdiction statutes in light of their evident purpose and structure rather than narrowly, declining to create loopholes that would let a party evade a remedy Congress plainly intended -- for instance, allowing an import-trade tribunal to consider acts of trade secret misappropriation that occur abroad when those acts relate to importation causing domestic injury.
“We think it highly unlikely that Congress, which clearly intended to create a remedy for the importation of goods resulting from unfair methods of competition, would have intended to create such a conspicuous loophole for misappropriators.”
He gives effect to the specific over the general in statutory interpretation, holding that a broadly worded later statute does not displace a narrow, precise, pre-existing scheme absent a clear indication that Congress meant to override it.
“It is a "basic principle of statutory construction that a statute dealing with a narrow, precise, and specific subject is not submerged by a later enacted statute covering a more generalized spectrum."”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“On that issue, we affirm the decision of the PTAB.”
“We vacate the Board's order and remand for further proceedings.”
“The district court denied Core Wireless's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and Core Wireless took this appeal. We affirm.”
“Because we conclude that the district court's claim construction and analysis was flawed in certain respects and that summary judgment of noninfringement should not have been entered, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.”
“We affirm the district court's judgment of invalidity as to claim 2, and we affirm-in-part and vacate-in-part the district court's judgment of noninfringement as to claims 1, 5, 6, and 7. We remand for further consideration of the infringement issues and consideration of the validity of claims 1, 5, 6, and 7 in light of our claim construction.”
“We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to the appeal but reverse the judgment on the cross-appeal with respect to the issue of obviousness. As to that issue, we reverse and remand to the district court for entry of judgment in the defendants' favor.”
“Accordingly, we affirm the Board's determination that claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10 and 14 of the '457 patent would have been obvious in light of the prior art.... AFFIRMED.”
“We therefore affirm the district court's decision that the '237 patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct in connection with the second reexamination, but not in connection with the first. We also affirm the district court's decisions with respect to the appropriate remedy.... AFFIRMED”
“New World International, Inc., and National Auto Parts, Inc., (collectively, "New World") appeal from a final decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissing New World's declaratory judgment complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendant-appellee Ford Global Technologies, LLC ("FGTL"). We affirm.”
“Because the administrative judge misconstrued an important component of the evidence in the case, we reverse the Board's decision and remand the case to the Board for further proceedings.”
“We therefore vacate the orders of the Board of Contract Appeals and remand these cases to the Board with instructions to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. VACATED AND REMANDED.”
“Bayer Schering Pharma AG and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (collectively, "Bayer") appeal from two judgments of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.... We affirm.”
Put Judge Bryson's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Bryson actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Bryson's own signed orders and cites them.