Readme for Federal Circuit data file created by Melissa F. Wasserman and Jonathan D. Slack. The data file contains Federal Circuit opinions in each row and case/opinion attributes on the columns. The data file covers opinions issued from 10.13.2004 through 1.30.2018. This data file is the basis for the article Can There Be Too Much Specialization? Specialization in Specialized Courts, 115 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1405 (2021), available at https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol115/iss5/3. Portions of this data file are derived from The Compendium of Federal Circuit Decisions, https://fedcircuit.shinyapps.io/federalcompendium. Other portions are derived from the Federal Circuit’s published opinions docket, http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders. The portion of this data file concerning Supreme Court review was derived from Harold J. Spaeth, Lee Epstein, et al. 2020 Supreme Court Database, Version 2020 Release 1, http://scdb.wustl.edu/data.php. Column Descriptions caseDate: date of issuance for the opinion origin: tribunal of origin; the accuracy of this column is not known; this column was not used in 115 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1405. caseName: case caption (i.e., the names of the parties involved in the opinion) type: precedential or non-precedential appealNumber: Federal Circuit’s docket identification number subjectMatter: the subject matter that the opinion addresses (e.g., Patent, Veterans, International Trade) subjectMatter2: Patent or Non-patent patentNos: identification numbers for the patents involved in the opinion (applicable only to Patent opinion as identified in subjectMatter and subjectMatter2); if multiple patents, the numbers are separated by semicolons; design patents contain a “D” prefix; patent applications contain an “AP” prefix; reissue patents contain an “RE” prefix techGroup: technology group(s) for the patents involved in the opinion (e.g., Mech, Elec); the technology categories are derived from the NBER technology groupings, see 115 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1405; patent opinions with patents in multiple technology groups are labelled with “Multi” techGroup2: the subgroups within the main NBER technology groups for the patents involved in the opinion (e.g., Mech: Metal Working); patent opinions with patents in multiple subgroups are labelled with “[Multi]” doctype: all rows should be “Opinion” enBanc: Yes or No depending on whether the appeal was heard en banc judge1: the last name of the first judge on the panel deciding the appeal (three judges are on a panel unless it is an en banc appeal); if the appeal is an en banc appeal, “En Banc” is entered instead of a judge last name judge2: the last name of the second judge on the panel deciding the appeal; if the appeal is an en banc appeal, this field is blank. judge3: the last name of the third judge on the panel deciding the appeal; if the appeal is an en banc appeal, this field is blank. enBancJudges: if the appeal is an en banc appeal, all judge last names will be listed and separated by semicolons; if the appeal is not an en banc appeal, this column is empty. opinion1: either “Unanimous” or “Majority”; unanimous means all three judges on the panel joined the main opinion; majority means two judges joined the main opinion opinion1Author: last name of the judge authoring the majority/unanimous opinion opinion2: if there is a secondary opinion, then the type of that opinion is listed in this column (e.g., concurring, dissenting) opinion2Author: the author of the secondary opinion, if there is one; if the appeal is an en banc appeal with multiple judges joining the secondary opinion, all of those judges are listed and separated by semicolons opinion3: if there is a tertiary opinion, then the type of that opinion is listed in this column (e.g., concurring, dissenting) opinion3Author: the author of the tertiary opinion, if there is one; if the appeal is an en banc appeal with multiple judges joining the tertiary opinion, all of those judges are listed and separated by semicolons TribofOrigin: an additional column concerning the tribunal of origin; this column was generated using an automated analysis, and thus the accuracy of this column is not known; this column was not used in 115 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1405. DisputeType: the type of dispute for patent opinions (e.g., IPR, Opposition “OP”, Interference) DispGeneral: only applies to patent opinions and signifies the disposition of the appeal (e.g., affirm, reverse, remand) supCtReview: Yes if, after issuance of the opinion, a party petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari; No otherwise supCtDisp: if there was Supreme Court review, the result of that review is signified by the following codes: 1 stay, petition, or motion granted 2 affirmed (includes modified) 3 reversed 4 reversed and remanded 5 vacated and remanded 6 affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part 7 affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded 8 vacated 9 petition denied or appeal dismissed 10 certification to or from a lower court 11 no disposition