After considering the merits of a case, Judges Pauline Newman and Timothy Dyk often arrive at opposite conclusions. As just a sample, I thumbed through all of the precedential patent decisions that involved both judges since January 2010. Of those 25 decisions, the pair disagreed on the outcome or application of the law in 19. I.e., the two judges disagreed in more than 75% of the cases.
Dissents are now fairly common. During the past two years about 25% of precedential decisions included a dissenting opinion. Of course, in 2/3 of those cases either Judge Newman or Judge Dyk was involved in the dissent.
A note on these figures – they include en banc decisions where multiple opinions are much more likely. When restricted to three-member panels, the Newman-Dyk disagreement rate dropped to just under 60% (7/12) in precedential decisions.
This represents fascinating legal scholarship.
Dennis,
You also may want to look at Newman v. Clevenger.
You even got the whole community of Scots Hill to be against me too. You mark my words you Triple Dipps.’I’ll squash you like Grapes. Now you can really have that Whine with your Cheese!
And for the life of Me B I can’t believe you even have the audacity to remain here in Tennessee!
“http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/berkeley-researchers-turn-brain-waves-into-videos.php”
It’s official, now even the act of watching a movie will be copyright infringement.
Dennis, do you have these same stats for Rader/Dyk? Might be interesting in light of their recent back and forth over subject matter patentability (RCT/CyberSource/Ultramercial).
Comments are closed.