[3] She worked as a research scientist for American Cyanamid from 1951 to 1954, during which time she was issued patents for "colorful, dirt-resistant synthetic fabric she helped invent".

[6] From 1961 to 1962 Newman also worked for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a science policy specialist in the Department of Natural Resources.

Over her career, Newman has received honors including the Wilbur Cross Medal of Yale University Graduate School, and the Award for Outstanding Contributions to International Cooperation from the Pacific Industrial Property Association.

[6] In 1982, while serving on a presidential committee on industrial stagnation for President Ronald Reagan, Newman helped create the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

[6][7] On January 30, 1984, President Ronald Reagan nominated Newman to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated by Judge Philip Nichols Jr., who had assumed senior status on October 1, 1983.

[11] That same year, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg praised Newman for inspiring women with "her intelligence, her diligence, her devotion to a very difficult area of the law".

He writes:[21] At the core of Judge Newman's dissenting jurisprudence is the premise that the sovereign as a contracting party should be accountable for its actions, subject only to limited exceptions not to be presumed, unnecessarily expanded, or imposed in a formalistic doctrinaire way that ignores or masks the facts of government conduct.

Where the facts justify it, contractors should be entitled to a 'fair and just' remedy, and the Federal Circuit is there to make sure this happens.In Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005), the Supreme Court modified a point of law by expressly adopting Judge Newman's position.

[5] In 2015 Newman wrote a dissent in Ariosa v. Sequenom that criticized Federal Circuit's holding on patent-eligible subject matter (claims preempting the use of the laws of nature), following the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

Gene Quinn and Nancy Braman, writing for IPWatchdog, praised Judge Newman's position in this case, stating that her "dissent in Ariosa would be a way forward for the Federal Circuit and would be in keeping with the admonition from the Supreme Court that §101 not be used to swallow all of patent law".

[22] In April 2023, Newman wrote a dissent in SAS Institute Inc v. World Programming Ltd., asserting that the majority had conflated infringement and copyrightability questions and failed to enunciate the burden of proof.

Judge Newman was eloquent, coherent, cogent, and spoke passionately about various topics, including section 101 (which requires a bit of mental agility, I would say).

[26] In June 2023, former Chief Judge Randall Rader stated in The Washington Post that he had spoken with Newman recently, and that she was "the same Polly I knew 10 or 20 years ago—as sharp as ever".

[40] On June 28, Bloomberg News reported that Newman's lawyers, with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, had filed information with the court stating that Ted L. Rothstein, a neurologist and professor at the George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences had "examined the judge and found 'no significant cognitive deficits'", concluding that her "cognitive function is sufficient to continue her participation in her court's proceedings".

[44] On August 4, 2023, a Federal Circuit panel, composed of Judges Moore, Sharon Prost, and Richard G. Taranto, recommended suspending Newman from hearing cases for one year over her alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation.

[49] Following the suspension, former Chief Judge Rader published an open letter in IP Watchdog stating that Newman "does not suffer from the slightest mental decline", and imploring the members of the court to "act with kindness and consideration".

[52] Former Chief Judge Paul Redmond Michel also published such a letter, expressing concerns about the effect of these proceedings on "first, the integrity of the court; second, the interests of parties seeking justice at the Federal Circuit; and third, procedural fairness and balance".