Professor Kimberly Moore Receives Nomination to Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

As predicted, the White House has sent Professor Kimberly Moore’s name to the Senate as a nominee to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit — filling the spot of Judge Raymond C. Clevenger, III, who has retired.

This should make the CAFC Judicial Conference that starts on May 19 a bit more exciting.

Professor Moore has long been considered one of the handful of leading patent law professors, and is especially noted for her empirical research methods. In addition, Moore is co-author of a book on patent litigation along with CAFC Chief Judge Michel and she is the Editor-in-Chief of the Federal Circuit Bar Journal. 

Although not a registered patent attorney, Moore holds a BS and MS from MIT in electrical engineering.  Her masters thesis focused on chaos theory applied to electrical systems.  She received her JD from Georgetown.  Moore has been teaching law — and more specifically patent law — since completing her clerkship with Judge Archer at the CAFC.  She also has trial experience from her associate days at Kirkland & Ellis.

My two-cents — Professor Moore is an excellent nominee.  She is extremely intelligent, and has a complete understanding of the legal issues faced by the CAFC.  You will find that her decisions will be fair and quick, and, I believe that her vast knowledge of the CAFC and its history will help her to craft opinions that reconcile some of the internal cracks that have surfaced the past few years. I hope that the Patent Bar and will stand with me in putting its weight fully behind this nomination.

Congratulations to Professor Moore!

Comments

[Anonymous]

Professor Moore does appear to be both highly intelligent and accomplished. And as a GTown alum, it would be great to see another former Hoya on the Federal Circuit. (If she is approved, she will join fellow GTown alums Linn and Gajarsa.) I would just like to raise the point that none of the recently-appointed judges on the Federal Circuit have experience as district court judges. I just wonder (out loud) whether this is a bad thing.

[jim hawes]

I agree. Prof. Moore is an excellent choice for the CAFC.
Since its creation in 1982 the CAFC has usually been used by the Administration as political currency - they trade a judgeship for a Senate Admin. Aid when a Senator's vote is needed on something.
The AIPLA should have been objecting, and taking a far more active, visible role in getting people with at least a bit of patent law knowledge on the Court. But they haven't.
Pres. Bush should be congratulated for this nomination. Also, I urge all to write their Senators supporting this nomination. Jim Hawes

[Bill Rooklidge]

I agree with Dennis and Jim that Professor Moore will be an outstanding addition to the Federal Circuit bench. I disagree, however, with Jim's comment about AIPLA's perceived lack of activity in this area. AIPLA has long urged the White House, Department of Justice and Senate for the appointment of judges with more experience relevant to the Court's patent jurisdiction, written in support of nominees with relevant experience and other appropriate qualities, and through its public appointments committee evaluated nominees and potential nominees to the Federal Circuit. AIPLA tries to play a positive role in the President's nomination of, and the Senate's consideration of, those candidates. AIPLA hasn't, as Jim suggests, objected to particular nominations or nominees. Despite the success that some groups have had with this tactic (recall Robert Bork and Lani Guinier), AIPLA does not view that strategy as positive, conducive to long-term relationships with the White House or Senate, or likely to contribute to success in achieving the Association's goal. I'm sorry to say that if a judicial nomination were ever used as political currency--a fact that is beyond the ken of this outside-the-beltway patent lawyer--AIPLA's political currency surely would be inadequate to outbid a United States Senator.

[George Olaru]

The nomination of Professor Kimberly Moore is an excellent choice. The bravos should probably go to Judge Michel. I used many times Professor Moore’s writings as a reference and as a second eye. Professor Moore will most likely become the next CAFC Chief Judge and thus will have a chance to bring the 21st spirit and look to this Old Boys Club.

CAFC needs to review its IP practices and bring the patentees and the public closer together by providing sound decisions that can be more predictable. Unanimity in the CAFC IP decisions should be implemented immediately (even if we should all wait a few months to hear “habemus papa” for each case).

CAFC should also put some pressure on the USPTO to become more responsible for the poor quality of the granted patents.

CAFC should also see the so called “patent trolls” as the true engine of innovation. At least the “patent trolls” set an example re patenting timing/strategies and for patent drafting/prosecution best practices that need to be followed by the RIMs and Apples who are the victims of their own IP arrogance and myopia.