{"id":12176,"date":"2023-07-09T12:57:03","date_gmt":"2023-07-09T18:57:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=12176"},"modified":"2023-07-09T21:51:26","modified_gmt":"2023-07-10T03:51:26","slug":"oral-argument-of-the-day-lkq-corp-v-gm-global-tech-operations-llc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=12176","title":{"rendered":"Oral argument of the day: LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations, LLC"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The oral argument of the day is from LKQ CORPORATION v. GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC<\/em>, No. 2021-2348 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2023)<\/a>. The Federal Circuit recently granted en banc review in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am listing a second oral argument, as well, as there was a companion case argued immediately following the 2021-2348 oral argument. I thought some people might find it interesting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When argued, the en banc argument should feature Judge Clevenger. While he is a senior judge, he was part of the original panel. So, he is entitled to participate in the en banc decision with the full-time members of the court — although, I believe the Federal Circuit changed its procedures in recent years so that senior judges on the original panel are no longer allowed to vote in determining whether to take a case en banc. Judge Clevenger authored the “Durling<\/a>” decision in 1996. In the original 2021-2348 panel decision, the “Rosen<\/a>” and “Durling” tests are discussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n