February 20, 2007
Posted by
Mark Reichel
/ 6:42 AM /
I will periodically post case citations from the Federal Circuit along with the date of the opinion/order and a brief list of the legal topics discussed therein (specifically those with additional embedded case law citations). My goal is to post new cases on a weekly basis. This posting covers the remaining two patent cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit during the fourth calendar week of 2007. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.
Regents of the Univ. of California v. Dako North America (Order, 02/14/2007): petition for permission to appeal claim construction order and denial of preliminary injunction, appellate discretion when deciding to grant permission to appeal an interlocutory order certified by a trial court, permission granted in part because district court revisited claim construction issue before the appellate court, and if the petition were not granted, “the merits panel in the pending appeals would be reviewing the district court’s first order based upon limited record before the district court when it considered the motion for a preliminary injunction, even though the district court itself has now revisited the issue based upon a more complete record”
RFR Indus. v. Century Steps (02/16/2007): appeal of grant of motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting motion for attorney’s fees (vacated grant of judgment on the pleadings and reversed grant of attorney’s fees, discussion of two patents relating to an embedded railway track system (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,577,662 and 5,535,947 (both entitled “Embedded railway track system”)), right of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 prior to service of answer, filing an answer with the court and faxing an answer to opposing counsel did not constitute service of the answer, award of attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 to the “prevailing party” in a patent dispute, voluntary dismissal by plaintiff does not make the defendant a prevailing party
Regents of the Univ. of California v. Dako North America (Order, 02/14/2007): petition for permission to appeal claim construction order and denial of preliminary injunction, appellate discretion when deciding to grant permission to appeal an interlocutory order certified by a trial court, permission granted in part because district court revisited claim construction issue before the appellate court, and if the petition were not granted, “the merits panel in the pending appeals would be reviewing the district court’s first order based upon limited record before the district court when it considered the motion for a preliminary injunction, even though the district court itself has now revisited the issue based upon a more complete record”
RFR Indus. v. Century Steps (02/16/2007): appeal of grant of motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting motion for attorney’s fees (vacated grant of judgment on the pleadings and reversed grant of attorney’s fees, discussion of two patents relating to an embedded railway track system (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,577,662 and 5,535,947 (both entitled “Embedded railway track system”)), right of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 prior to service of answer, filing an answer with the court and faxing an answer to opposing counsel did not constitute service of the answer, award of attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 to the “prevailing party” in a patent dispute, voluntary dismissal by plaintiff does not make the defendant a prevailing party
0 comments:
Post a Comment