Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Kara Farnandez Stoll
2015 - Present
10
Kara Farnandez Stoll is a federal judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Prior to joining the court, she was a partner at the law firm of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner, LLP. Stoll was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by President Barack Obama on November 12, 2014.[1] She was confirmed by the Senate on July 7, 2015, on a vote of 95 to 0.[2]
Education
Stoll earned her B.S. from Michigan State University in 1991, and her J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1997.[1][3]
Professional career
- 2015 - Present: Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- 2008-2015: Adjunct professor, George Mason University Law School
- 2004-2008: Adjunct professor, Howard University School of Law
- 1998-2015: Partner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner, LLP
- 1997-1998: Law clerk, Hon. Alvin Schall, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- 1991-1997: Patent examiner, United States Patent and Trademark Office[1]
Judicial career
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
 |
| Nominee Information |
| Name: Kara Farnandez Stoll |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
| Progress |
| Confirmed 237 days after nomination. |
 Nominated: November 12, 2014
|
| ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
|
| Questionnaire: Questionnaire |
| Hearing: March 11, 2015
|
| QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more) |
| Reported: April 23, 2015
|
| Confirmed: July 7, 2015
|
| Vote: 95-0
|
Stoll was nominated by President Barack Obama on November 12, 2014. Stoll was nominated to fill the vacancy created by Randall Rader, who retired on June 30, 2014. On the nomination:
| “ | These individuals have displayed exceptional dedication to the legal profession through their work, and I am honored to nominate them to serve the American people as judges on the United States Courts of Appeals. They will be diligent, judicious and esteemed additions to the bench.[4] | ” |
| —President Barack Obama, [1] | ||
The American Bar Association rated Stoll Unanimously Well Qualified for the nomination.[5]
Stoll's nomination was returned on December 31, 2014. She was renominated by President Barack Obama on January 7, 2014.[6]
Hearings on Stoll's nomination were held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 11, 2015.[7] Stoll's nomination was reported to the full Senate by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on April 23, 2015.[8]
On July 7, 2015, the United States Senate confirmed Stoll to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on a vote of 95 to 0. Stoll received her commission to the court on July 8, 2015.[2][9]
Noteworthy cases
Federal Circuit rules Patent Trial and Appeal Board can issue decisions on issue-by-issue basis
- See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (SAS Institute, Inc., v. ComplementSoft LLC, Nos. 15-1346, 15-1347)
- See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (SAS Institute, Inc., v. ComplementSoft LLC, Nos. 15-1346, 15-1347)
On June 10, 2016, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit ruled that federal law did not require the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to issue a written decision on and all related patent claims raised by SAS Institute during inter partes review.
Inter partes review was instituted in 2011 by Congress under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Under the Act, an administrative tribunal within the Patent and Trademark Office called the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (hereafter, Board), hears reviews requested by an interested party regarding the validity of a patent. Though the Board is not a court, decisions of the Board can be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As Rochelle C. Dreyfuss noted in a column for Slate, "Reviews are quicker and cheaper than litigation because they are conducted under a special set of procedural rules with no right to a trial by jury. And because they are essentially a do-over, there is no presumption that the patent is valid, as there would be in court."[10] The issue in this case, however, was whether a provision of federal law, 35 U.S.C. §318, required the Board to issue a final written decision that addresses all of the challenged claims presented in inter partes review.
Writing for a divided 2-1 panel, Judge Kara Farnandez Stoll cited the Federal Circuit's own 2016 precedent in Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. in foreclosing SAS' argument that the Board was required to rule on all of the claims presented. She wrote,[11]
| “ |
Synopsys presented the same question that SAS raises here: Must a final written decision by the Board address every patent claim challenged in an IPR petition? The petitioner argued, as does SAS, that the text of the final written decision statutory subsection, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), compels the Board to address every petition challenged claim. We found, however, 'no statutory requirement that the Board’s final decision address every claim raised in a petition for inter partes review. Section 318(a) only requires the Board to address claims as to which review was granted.' ... We found it significant that § 318(a) describes claims challenged by the petitioner, whereas the institution decision statutory subsection, 35 U.S.C. § 314, describes 'claims challenged in the petition.' We reasoned that the differing language implies a distinction between the two subsections such that § 318(a) does not foreclose the claim-by-claim approach the Board adopted there and in this case. Further, we upheld the validity of a PTO-promulgated regulation authorizing the claim-by-claim approach. ... Accordingly, we reject SAS’s argument that the Board must address all claims challenged in an IPR petition in its final written decision.[4] |
” |
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in this case during its October 2017 term.
- For more, see SAS Institute v. Matal
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 The White House, "President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the United States Courts of Appeals," November 12, 2014
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 United States Senate, "On the Nomination (Confirmation Kara Farnandez Stoll, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit)," accessed July 7, 2015
- ↑ Finnegan, "Kara Farnandez Stoll," accessed November 13, 2014
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III Judicial Nominees: 113th Congress," accessed November 24, 2014
- ↑ The White House, "Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate," January 7, 2015
- ↑ The Library of Congress, "Nomination PN12-144," accessed March 13, 2015
- ↑ Senate Judiciary Committee, "Results of Executive Business Meeting," April 23, 2015
- ↑ Federal Judicial Center, "Biographical directory of federal judges," accessed May 26, 2016
- ↑ Slate.com, "Should the Patent and Trademark Office be allowed to change its mind?" June 21, 2017
- ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, SAS Institute, Inc., v. ComplementSoft LLC, June 10, 2016
| Political offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by - |
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2015-Present |
Succeeded by - |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Nominated | |||
