Raymond Chen

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Raymond Chen
Image of Raymond Chen

Nonpartisan

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Tenure

2013 - Present

Years in position

11

Education

Bachelor's

University of California, Los Angeles, 1990

Law

New York University Law School, 1994

Personal
Birthplace
New York, N.Y.


Raymond Chen is a federal judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He joined the court in 2013 after a nomination from President Barack Obama. At the time of his nomination, he was deputy general counsel for intellectual property law and a solicitor for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).[1][2]

Early life and education

A native of New York City, Chen earned a B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1990. He went on to earn a J.D. from the New York University School of Law in 1994.[3]

Professional career

  • 2008-2013: Deputy general counsel for intellectual property law and solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • 1998-2008: Associate solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • 1996-1998: Technical assistant, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • 1994-1996: Private practice, Irvine, California[3]

Federal court nomination

Federal Circuit

Nomination Tracker
Fedbadgesmall.png
Nominee Information
Name: Raymond Chen
Court: Federal Circuit
Progress
Confirmed 175 days after nomination.
ApprovedANominated: February 7, 2013
ApprovedAABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire: Questionnaire
ApprovedAHearing: April 24, 2013
QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more)
ApprovedAReported: May 16, 2013 
ApprovedAConfirmed: August 1, 2013
ApprovedAVote: 97-0

On February 7, 2013, President Obama nominated Chen to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a seat vacated by Richard Linn upon his retirement.[1] Obama commented on the nomination, stating:

“ Raymond T. Chen and Todd M. Hughes have displayed exceptional dedication to public service throughout their careers. I am honored to nominate them today to serve the American people on the United States Court of Appeals. I am confident that they will be judicious and esteemed additions to the Federal Circuit.[3][4] ”

Chen was rated Unanimously Well Qualified by the American Bar Association.[5] Hearings on Chen's nomination were held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 24, 2013, and Chen's nomination was reported by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on May 16, 2013.[6][7]

On August 1, 2013, the United States Senate confirmed Chen to an Article III post for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by a vote of 97-0. Chen received his commission on August 2, 2013.[8][9][2]

Noteworthy cases

Federal appeals court finds PTAB structure unconstitutional, determines APJs to be inferior officers (2019)

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on October 31, 2019, held in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al. that the structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.[10][11]

Judges Kimberly Moore, Raymond Chen, and Jimmie V. Reyna identified a structural flaw in the PTAB's statutory scheme for appointing its administrative patent judges (APJs). Under the faulty system, the United States secretary of commerce appointed APJs. Once appointed, APJs enjoyed for-cause removal protections that only permitted removal by the secretary or the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for “such cause as will promote efficiency of the service.”[10][11]

The judges held that APJs exercise significant authority that qualifies them as principal, rather than inferior, officers. As such, APJs must be directly appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the United States Senate pursuant to the Appointments Clause.[10][11]

Instead of changing the method of appointing APJs, however, the court cited precedent set forth in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to propose removing APJs’ for-cause removal protections in order to classify them as inferior officers. Without protections against removal, the judges stated that APJs would be considered inferior officers subject to at-will removal by the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.[10][11]

“We believe that this, the narrowest revision to the scheme intended by Congress for reconsideration of patent rights, is the proper course of action and the action Congress would have undertaken,” wrote Moore.[10]

The court’s decision could result in the rehearing of 50 to 70 cases before the board.[10]

SCOTUS reverses Federal Circuit ruling over the number of infringed components necessary for patent infringement litigation (2017)
See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Life Technologies Corporation v. Promega Corporation)

On February 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Life Technologies Corporation v. Promega Corporation. Judge Raymond Chen wrote the opinion of the circuit panel.

A provision of patent law, 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1), provided that an entity was guilty of patent infringement when (a) "all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention", uncombined, are shipped or caused to be shipped in or from the U.S. and (b) that entity actively induces the combination of uncombined components outside of the United States in such a way as to infringe on the patent as if the components were combined in the United States. Life Technologies Corporation challenged a Federal Circuit holding by Judge Raymond Chen that the company, in shipping only one component, caused "all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention" to be combined. Writing for a unanimous, seven-justice court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reversed the circuit panel, holding that the use of the term substantial in §271(f)(1) referred solely to the number of components. In light of this interpretation, the court further held that a single component could never constitute a substantial portion of a patented, multicomponent invention so as to trigger liability under §271(f)(1). Chief Justice John G. Roberts recused himself from the disposition of the case.[12]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 The White House, "Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate," February 7, 2013
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Federal Judicial Center, "Biographical directory of federal judges," accessed November 2, 2015
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 The White House, "President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit," February 7, 2013
  4. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  5. ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III judicial nominees, 113th Congress," accessed May 26, 2016
  6. ↑ Senate Judiciary Committee, "113th Congress Nomination Materials,"
  7. ↑ United States Congress, "PN 133 - Raymond T. Chen - The Judiciary," accessed May 26, 2016
  8. ↑ United States Senate, "113th Congress Confirmations," accessed September 9, 2013
  9. ↑ United States Periodic Press Gallery, "Home," accessed September 9, 2013
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 Reuters, "U.S. patent board is unconstitutional, but problem can be fixed: appeals court," October 31, 2019
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, "Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc et al," October 31, 2019
  12. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., decided February 22, 2017

Political offices
Preceded by
- 		United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2013-Present		 Succeeded by
-


Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Raymond_Chen&oldid=9813781"