Hyatt gets en banc review at CAFC on evidence issues!

From the CAFC order of 17 Feb. 2010, the issues to be decided en banc:

(a) Are there any limitations on the admissibility of evidence in section
145 proceedings? In particular—

(i) Does the Administrative Procedure Act require review on the
agency record in proceedings pursuant to section 145?
(ii) Does section 145 provide for a de novo proceeding in the
district court?
(iii) If section 145 does not provide for a de novo proceeding in the
district court, what limitations exist on the presentation of new
evidence before the district court?

(b) Did the district court properly exclude the Hyatt declaration?

Note that the New York Intellectual Property Law Association filed a brief as
amicus curiae in support of Gilbert Hyatt's position.

**Of Hyatt, recall also


Did Mark Lemley name Gary Boone as the inventor of the integrated circuit?