Jimmie V. Reyna
2011 - Present
13
Jimmie V. Reyna is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He joined the court in 2011 after being nominated by President Barack Obama. Prior to joining the court, Reyna was a partner with Williams Mullen, P.C. in Washington D.C. Reyna was the first Latino to be appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[1][2]
Early life and education
Reyna received his B.A. from the University of Rochester in 1975, and his J.D. from the University of New Mexico School of Law in 1978.[3]
Professional career
- 1998-2011: Associate and partner, Williams Mullen, P.C.
- 1986-1998: Private practice, Washington D.C.
- 1979-1986: Private practice, Albuquerque, N.M.[3]
Judicial career
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
 |
| Nominee Information |
| Name: Jimmie V. Reyna |
| Court: Federal Circuit |
| Progress |
| Confirmed 187 days after nomination. |
| Questionnaire: |
| Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript |
| QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more) |
On September 29, 2010, President Obama nominated Reyna to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[4] Obama commented on the nomination stating:
| “ | At every step of their careers these individuals have performed with excellence and unwavering integrity. I am confident they will serve the American people with distinction on the Circuit Court bench.[5] | ” |
The American Bar Association rated Reyna Unanimously Well Qualified for the nomination.[6] Reyna's nomination was returned to the president on December 22, 2010, at the end of the 111th Congress.[7] President Obama resubmitted the nomination on January 5, 2011. Hearings on Reyna's nomination were held in the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on February 16, 2011, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on March 10, 2011. Reyna's nomination was confirmed by a Senate vote of 86-0 on April 4, 2011, and he received his commission on April 5, 2011.[8][1]
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.[9][10]
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.”[9][10]
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.[9][10]
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.[9][10]
“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.[9]
The court’s decision could result in the rehearing of 50 to 70 cases before the board.[9]
SCOTUS affirms en banc Federal Circuit in attorneys' fees case (2013)
On May 20, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc. Judge Jimmie V. Reyna delivered the opinion of the circuit court.
After developing symptoms of multiple sclerosis, which she alleged were the result of a Hepatitis B vaccine she received, Melissa Cloer filed a lawsuit under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (Act). Her claim was denied based on the finding of a special master that her claim was time-barred. The Court of Federal Claims upheld the master's ruling, but the Federal Circuit reversed. The court granted the government's motion for rehearing and held the Act's statute-of-limitations period can be tolled (paused) in certain circumstances. The court, however, held that Cloer's circumstances did not meet the tolling requirements. Cloer filed a petition for attorneys' fees and costs incurred for her appeal under a provision of the Act allowing for claimants to recover attorneys' fees for any proceeding "brought in good faith with a reasonable basis for the claim even if the claimant does not win the case." Writing for an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit, Judge Jimmie V. Reyna held that Cloer did qualify for attorneys' fees if she met the good faith and reasonable basis requirements and remanded the case with instructions to decide those issues. The government appealed.
Writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor affirmed the circuit court's decision.[11][12]
See also
External links
- The White House, Press Release: "President Obama Names Two to U.S. Circuit Courts," September 29, 2010
- Judge Reyna's biography from the Federal Circuit website
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Federal Judicial Center, "Biographical directory of federal judges," accessed November 3, 2015
- ↑ Law Week Colorado, "Hispanic Bar To Honor Judge Jimmie Reyna," October 2, 2012
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 The White House, "President Obama Names Two to U.S. Circuit Courts," September 29, 2010
- ↑ The White House, "Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate," September 29, 2010
- ↑ 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, 112th Congress," accessed May 26, 2016
- ↑ United States Congress, "PN 2250 - Jimmie V. Reyna - The Judiciary," accessed May 25, 2016
- ↑ United States Congress, "PN 1 - Jimmie V. Reyna - The Judiciary," accessed May 25, 2016
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Reuters, "U.S. patent board is unconstitutional, but problem can be fixed: appeals court," October 31, 2019
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, "Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc et al," October 31, 2019
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Sebelius v. Cloer, May 20, 2013
- ↑ Oyez.org, "Sebelius v. Cloer," accessed October 13, 2017
| Political offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by - |
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2011-Present |
Succeeded by - |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Active judges |
Chief Judge: Kimberly Moore • Leonard Stark • Sharon Prost • Pauline Newman • Alan Lourie • Timothy Dyk • Jimmie V. Reyna • Richard Gary Taranto • Raymond Chen • Todd Hughes • Kara Farnandez Stoll • Tiffany Cunningham | ||
| Senior judges |
Alvin Schall • Haldane Mayer • Richard Linn • William Bryson • S. Jay Plager • Raymond Clevenger • Evan Wallach • | ||
| Former judges | Kathleen M. O'Malley • Paul Michel • Randall Rader • Arthur Gajarsa • Daniel Friedman • Glenn Archer • James Almond • Jean Bissell • Phillip Baldwin • Marion Bennett • Arnold Cowen • Oscar Davis • Shiro Kashiwa • Don Laramore • Howard Markey • Jack Miller • Philip Nichols • Helen Nies • Giles Rich • Byron Skelton • Edward Samuel Smith • | ||
| Former Chief judges |
Paul Michel • Sharon Prost • Haldane Mayer • Glenn Archer • Howard Markey • Helen Nies • | ||
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Nominated | |||
