{"id":11738,"date":"2021-11-05T17:13:48","date_gmt":"2021-11-05T23:13:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11738"},"modified":"2021-11-05T17:13:48","modified_gmt":"2021-11-05T23:13:48","slug":"the-cleaned-up-citation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11738","title":{"rendered":"The “(cleaned up)” citation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Have you noticed that in recent opinions the Federal Circuit seems to have adopted the “(cleaned up)” citation when citing “busy” sources. The “(cleaned up)” citation allows a writer to make an argument more forcefully by eliminating some of the distracting citation details that have traditionally been involved in legal writing. For more details, here are some articles discussing “(cleaned up)” [LINK<\/a>] and [LINK<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below are some of the recent cases where the Federal Circuit has used “(cleaned up)” in an opinion or order. It appears that Judge Prost and Judge Taranto are far and away the biggest users of “(cleaned up).” Judges Bryson, Chen, Stoll, Dyk, O’Malley, Moore, and Hughes have only used it once or twice. Not surprisingly, Judge Wallach does not appear to have used it yet. During oral argument he is a stickler for accurate quotation from references. It will be interesting to see if “(cleaned up)” is abused and becomes frowned upon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rodriguez v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

8 F. 4th 1290 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7 days ago –  \u2026 Cir. 2020) (“To take adverse action against an employee, an agency must …
demonstrate that the penalty imposed was reasonable in light of the relevant factors set forth
in Douglas v. Veterans Administration.” (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)); Smith v. Gen. Servs \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

7 F. 4th 1320 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8 days ago –  \u2026 Ct. 1670; Takeda, 785 F.3d at 630 (“Congress intended that a single drug
could have more than one indication and yet that an ANDA applicant could seek approval
for less than all of those indications.” (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)). The result \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ENERGY HEATING, LLC v. HEAT ON-THE-FLY, LLC<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

22 days ago –  \u2026 Id. (vacating and remanding to the district court for “reconsideration” of attorneys’
fees); Camreta v. Greene, 563 US 692, 713 (2011) (“Vacatur . . . strips the decision below of its
binding effect and clears the path for future relitigation.” (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

24 days ago –  \u2026 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). It attaches if a patentee “has unequivocally disavowed a certain
meaning to obtain [a] patent” in a way that is “clear and unmistakable.” Omega, 334 F.3d at
1324-26. If so, it “narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

KANNUU PTY LTD. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

29 days ago –  \u2026 791 F.3d 290, 337 (2d. Cir. 2015) (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532
US 742, 750-51 (2001)); id. (“Relief is granted only when the impact on judicial integrity
is certain.” (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)). The transferred-to district court in NuCurrent \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCutchen v. United States<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

35 days ago –  \u2026 B. “[P]roperty interests . . . are created and their dimensions are defined by existing
rules or understandings that stem from an independent source.” Ruckelshaus, 467 US at 1001
(cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>); see also Phillips v. Washington Legal Found., 524 US 156, 164 (1998) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

JENNEWEIN BIOTECHNOLOGIE GMBH v. International Trade Commission<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

49 days ago –  \u2026 after subtracting [a third possible negative control strain],’ and `if we subtract [one
of the two previously discussed negative control strains] instead of the [third possible negative
control strain] as reference, the value would fall below 0.05′” (quoting JA 51523-51524) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

OMEGA PATENTS, LLC v. CALAMP CORP.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

52 days ago –  \u2026 2010) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). We likewise apply regional circuit law when reviewing a district
court’s evidentiary rulings. Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1276 (Fed. Cir \u2026
ought not in fairness be forced to acquiesce in that ruling.” Camreta, 563 US at 712 (cleaned<\/strong> \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. United States<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

72 days ago –  \u2026 1. As an initial matter, we reiterate that “contracting officers are entitled
to exercise discretion upon a broad range of issues confronting them in the procurement
process.” Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1332 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). “Contracting \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

73 days ago –  \u2026 Cir. 2001) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of
CommScope’s motion for JMOL of no infringement of the ‘521 patent and affirm the denial of
CommScope’s motion for JMOL of invalidity of the ‘521 patent over Wright. II \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lynch v. McDonough<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

999 F. 3d 1391 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

78 days ago –  \u2026 dictionary definitions of the words “approximate” and “balance” in concluding that
under the statute “evidence is in approximate balance when the evidence in favor of and opposing
the veteran’s claim is found to be almost exactly or nearly equal.” 274 F.3d at 1364 \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. GOOGLE LLC<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

8 F. 4th 1310 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

84 days ago –  \u2026 at 217, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 2347 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>), we must decide “whether
that patent-ineligible concept is what the claim is `directed to,'” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect,
Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Thales Visionix Inc \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

MILITARY-VETERANS ADVOCACY v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

98 days ago –  \u2026 id. (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). This \u2026 of . . . actual or imminent injury.” Lujan, 504 US at
564 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) (no actual or imminent injury where affiants merely professed intent
to visit endangered species without concrete plans to do so). Nor \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ortiz v. McDonough<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

6 F. 4th 1267 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

99 days ago –  \u2026 Ltd. v. United States, ___ US ___, 138 S. Ct. 2067, 2070, 201 L.Ed.2d 490 (2018)
(cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). The Secretary agrees that, in general, “to `liberalize’ means to make policies or
laws less strict.” Secretary Response Br. at 17 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019 \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kisor v. McDonough<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

995 F. 3d 1347 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

105 days ago –  \u2026 1718, 1725, 198 L.Ed.2d 177 (2017) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). Undoubtedly
the “entire [veterans-benefits] scheme is imbued with special beneficence from a grateful
sovereign.” Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360, 1370 (Fed. Cir \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

IN RE KIRILICHIN<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

108 days ago –  \u2026 Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Board
therefore must provide “a reasoned basis for the agency’s actions” that “suffice[s] for us to see
that the agency has done its job.” In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

STUPP CORPORATION v. United States<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

113 days ago –  \u2026 difference” test to be “reasonable”); JBF, 790 F.3d at 1363, 1367 (holding that
Commerce’s interpretation of 19 USC \u00a7 1677f-1(d)(1)(B)(i) was reasonable and that “[b]ecause
Congress did not provide for a direct methodology, Commerce properly filled that gap” (cleaned<\/strong> \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cooper v. United States<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

121 days ago –  \u2026 See 28 USC \u00a7 1491(a)(1). But the Tucker Act “does not create any substantive
right enforceable against the United States for money damages.” United States v. Mitchell, 463
US 206, 216 (1983) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 Cir. 2004) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>); see Upshur v. United States, 135 \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

GATEARM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. ACCESS MASTERS, LLC<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

128 days ago –  \u2026 2004) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)). A. GateArm argues that the district court did not conduct the
legally required review of the magistrate judge’s disputed findings in reaching its decision to deny
GateArm’s motion for contempt. GateArm Opening Br. at 23-30, 53-60 \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

TVNGO LTD.(BVI) v. LG Electronics, Inc.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

130 days ago –  \u2026 We have jurisdiction under 28 USC \u00a7 1295(a)(1). DISCUSSION. “[A] patent must
be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby apprising the public of what
is still open to them.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 US 898, 909 (2014) (cleaned<\/strong> \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arellano v. McDonough<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

141 days ago –  \u2026 s] the statute’s purpose” and can be equitably tolled. CTS Corp. v.
Waldburger, 573 US 1, 10 (2014) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 disregard clear expressions of . . .
congressional intent.” (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)); see also Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yu v. APPLE INC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

147 days ago –  \u2026 v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 Cir. 2017) (cleaned<\/strong>
up<\/strong>). Here, the district court considered the intrinsic record and concluded that the claims were
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, despite Yu’s allegations to the contrary \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

WASTOW ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TRUCKMOVERS. COM, INC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

175 days ago –  \u2026 For that reason, the court concluded, the statements did “not characterize
the present invention as a whole. Instead, they disclose one way to carry out the present
invention.” Continental Circuits, 915 F.3d at 798 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

OLAPLEX, INC. v. L’OR\u00c9AL USA, INC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

183 days ago –  \u2026 Courts and juries also require precision because, especially where a trade secrets
claim involves a sophisticated and highly complex system, the district court or trier of fact will
not have the requisite expertise to define what the plaintiff leaves abstract.” (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

INFINITY COMPUTER PRODUCTS v. OKI DATA AMERICAS<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

987 F. 3d 1053 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

191 days ago –  \u2026 at 909, 134 S.Ct. 2120 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). It also serves as a “meaningful… check” against
“foster[ing] [an] innovation-discouraging `zone of uncertainty.'” Id. at 910-11, 134 S.Ct. 2120
(quoting United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 US 228, 236, 63 S.Ct. 165, 87 L \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

IN RE APPLE INC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

207 days ago –  \u2026 1983) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). Further, a re-transfer analysis should be “based on the
traditional factors bearing on a \u00a7 1404(a) analysis” and “should take into account the reasons
of convenience that caused the earlier transfer.” Intel, 841 F. App’x at 195 \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SIMO HOLDINGS v. HONG KONG UCLOUDLINK NETWORK<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

983 F. 3d 1367 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

224 days ago –  \u2026 that there is an alternative embodiment disclosed in the asserted patent that is
not encompassed by our claim construction does not out-weigh the language of the claim,
especially when the court’s construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence.” (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)); \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

240 days ago –  \u2026 Cir. 2016) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 18-19 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). Public accessibility is not limited
to circumstances of free or academic distributions; “commercial distribution” can qualify.
Garrett Corp. v. United States, 422 F.2d 874, 877-78 (Ct. Cl \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SAFEGUARD BASE OPERATIONS, LLC v. United States<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

989 F. 3d 1326 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

245 days ago –  \u2026 FAR 15.306 and 52.212-1(g) each provide that the Government “may” waive or
clarify. The “word `may’ clearly connotes discretion,” though “discretion is not whim.” Halo Elecs.,
Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., ___ US ___, 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1931, 195 L.Ed.2d 278 (2016) (cleaned<\/strong> \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

vPERSONALIZE INC. v. MAGNETIZE CONSULTANTS LTD.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

274 days ago –  \u2026 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). Additionally, under Washington law, a district court may \u2026 Cir. 2015)
(noting that a “party’s position. . . ultimately need not be correct for them to not stand out” under
35 USC \u00a7 285 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)); Fluke Corp. v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 162 Wash. App \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

IN RE SK HYNIX INC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

276 days ago –  \u2026 In the normal meaning of words this language of Section 1404(a) directs the
attention of the judge who is considering a transfer to the situation which existed when suit was
instituted.” Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 US 335, 343-44 (1960) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

L’OR\u00c9AL USA, INC. v. OLAPLEX, INC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

281 days ago –  \u2026 Cir. 2019) (‘419 Decision); id. at 1138-39 (affirming Board finding that “L’Or\u00e9al
used maleic acid because of L’Or\u00e9al’s access to Liqwd’s non-public information, rather than
because of L’Or\u00e9al’s independent development” (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)) \u2026 Cir. 2017) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ABS GLOBAL, INC. v. CYTONOME\/ST, LLC<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

984 F. 3d 1017 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

302 days ago –  \u2026 conditions which have caused the case to become moot.” US Bancorp Mortg.
Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 US 18, 24, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) (cleaned<\/strong>
up<\/strong>). In particular, it has explained that “[v]acatur is in order when \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

IN RE ABEL<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

302 days ago –  \u2026 at *3 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). The Board added that the claim’s limitations are properly
characterized as “methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes,” id. at *3-4
(cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>), and that the claim’s limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. PROMPTU SYSTEMS CORPORATION<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

305 days ago –  \u2026 v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a
claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements
are distinct components of the patented invention.” (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

TAYLOR & SONS, INC. v. United States<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2020 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

311 days ago –  \u2026 exactness.'” Gadsden, 956 F.3d at 1371 (quoting Otay Mesa Prop., LP v.
United States, 779 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). The trial court did not
clearly err in finding that the dealers failed to meet their burden \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

FATIGUE FRACTURE TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. NAVISTAR, INC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2020 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

312 days ago –  \u2026 at *4-7 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). The Board used the same constructions in its final decision.
Final Written Decision, 2019 WL 4126205, at *5. Neither party disputed those constructions before
the Board. Id. In August 2019, the Board issued its final written decision \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immunex Corp. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS US LLC<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

977 F. 3d 1212 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2020 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

318 days ago –  \u2026 Cir. 2004) (“[C]laims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and claim language should be read in light of the specification
as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

IN RE EARLEY<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2020 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

326 days ago –  \u2026 Cir. 2017) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). A \u2026 Cir. 2007). “This court has long rejected a
requirement of conclusive proof of efficacy for obviousness.” Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v.
Roxane Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). 1 \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

TRANSPACIFIC STEEL LLC v. United States<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2021 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

326 days ago –  \u2026 v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532, 539 (2019) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). Subsection (c)(1) states \u2026 The
1958 re-enactment, like the 1955 provision, authorized the President under appropriate conditions
to `take such action’ `as he deems necessary to adjust the imports.'” (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>)) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Flynn v. Department of Veterans Affairs<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2020 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

333 days ago –  \u2026 Cir. 2003) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). We see no reversible error in the AJ’s evaluation of the
evidence. CONCLUSION. We have considered Mr. Flynn’s additional arguments and find them
unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. AFFIRMED. COSTS. No costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. HOSPIRA, INC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2020 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

347 days ago –  \u2026 PDE.” JA 1043 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). Par’s expert, Dr. Toste, explained that using the upper
limit of potential metals for his calculations was appropriate “[b]ecause the ANDA says [Hospira]
could have up<\/strong> to that amount [of transition metals] and still be able to sell [its product \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mote v. Wilkie<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

976 F. 3d 1337 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2020 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

402 days ago –  \u2026 the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the
writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. US Dist. Ct. for DC, 542 US 367,
380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

972 F. 3d 1367 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2020 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

431 days ago –  \u2026 combination thereof.” Id. at *4. The district court noted that Egenera’s favored
definition was itself “so broad and formless as to be a generic black box for performing the
recited computer-implemented functions.” Id. at *6 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SEALY TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. SSB MANUFACTURING COMPANY<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2020 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

436 days ago –  \u2026 prior art reference “creates `basically the same’ visual impression as the
claimed design.” Id. (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). The determination of whether a prior art design qualifies
as a primary reference is a factual issue. Id. (citation omitted) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SONOMA APARTMENT ASSOCIATES v. US<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

939 F. 3d 1293 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2019 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

690 days ago –  \u2026 objection, the court found Dr. Ben-Zion qualified as an 1297 expert “who could
perform a damage calculation based on forensic economic concepts and who would opine on
all of [Sonoma’s] economic damages including tax neutralization.” JA 27 n.14 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>) \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SIMIO, LLC v. Flexsim Software Products, Inc.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

983 F. 3d 1353 – Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2020 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

706 days ago –  \u2026 v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>), to determine
whether the claim’s “character as a whole” is directed to ineligible subject matter, Affinity Labs
of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-58 (Fed. Cir. 2016) \u2026 2347 (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong> \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2019 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2 years ago –  \u2026 Mfg. LLC v. Jewell, 790 F.3d 235, 241 (DC Cir. 2015). It is “the trial forum,” not us,
that is “vested with authority to determine questions of fact [and that should have] the opportunity
to evaluate all the evidence the parties believe relevant to the issues.” Id. (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong> \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

MAATUK v. EMERSON ELECTRIC, INC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2019 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2 years ago –  \u2026 relationship once rent is not torn anew with each added use or disclosure,
although the damage suffered may thereby be aggravated.” Id. (cleaned<\/strong> up<\/strong>). We agree
that Dr. Maatuk’s trade secret misappropriation claim is time-barred \u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

MAKSIMUK v. CONNOR SPORT COURT INTERNATIONAL, LLC<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2019 – Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2 years ago –  \u2026 of adjudicatory authority from one Article III court to another, we have additionally
applied a clear-statement rule: A rule is jurisdictional if the Legislature clearly states that a
threshold limitation on a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional.” (emphasis added) (cleaned<\/strong> \u2026 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Have you noticed that in recent opinions the Federal Circuit seems to have adopted the “(cleaned up)” citation when citing “busy” sources. The “(cleaned up)” citation allows a writer to make an argument more forcefully by eliminating some of the distracting citation details that have traditionally been involved in legal writing. For more details, here […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11738"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11738"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11738\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11741,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11738\/revisions\/11741"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}