Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

CLS Bank Intl v. Alice Corp PTY, No. 10-M922 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2010)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-M922
Decided
February 2, 2010
Judge
Dyk, J.
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Miscellaneous Docket No, 922 CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Petitioner,

and

CLS SERVICES LTD.,

Counterclaim Defendant-Petitioner, v.

ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD.,

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Respondent.

On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

in case no. 07-CV-974, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer.

ON PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL

Before MAYER, BRYSON, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

ORDER

CLS Bank International et al. (CLS Bank) petitions for permission to appeal an order certified by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as one involving controlling issues of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and for which an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. opposes. CLS Bank replies.

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

2The district court granted CLS Bank’s motion for certification for interlocutory appeal on two issues: (1) whether a system located entirely outside the United States can be “used” within the United States, and (2) whether a method performed outside the United States can be “sold” or “offered for sale” in the United States within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

Ultimately, this court must exercise its own discretion in deciding whether it will grant permission to appeal interlocutory orders certified by a trial court. See In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation, 903 F.2d 822 (Fed. Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1). Given the posture of this case below, we determine that it would be more appropriate for the trial court to complete its proceedings rather than for us to review the issues at this interlocutory stage.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition for permission to appeal is denied.

FOR THE COURT

FEB 0 2. 2010 /s/ Ja

n Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Steven J. Glassman, Esq.

Ryan T. Scarborough, Esq. us. coue f LED.E ALS FOR $19

“THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

FEB 02 2010

JAN HORBALY

CLERK

Misc. 922 -2-

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

CLS Bank Intl v. Alice Corp PTY, No. 10-M922 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2010).

Record ID
CAFC-10-M922-20100202
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-M922-20100202

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.