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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., No. 11-1078 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2011)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 11-1078
Decided
August 1, 2011
Judge
See opinion
Document
Order on Motion
Length
4 pages

Nore: This order is nonprecedential. GAnited States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

CLEARVALUE, INC, anp RICHARD ALAN HAASE,

Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants,

Vv.

PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC., POLYCHEMIE,

INC., SNF, INC., POLYDYNE, INC., anp SNF

HOLDING COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellants.

2011-1078, -1100

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in case no. 06-CV-0197, Judge Leonard Davis.

ON MOTION

Before Prost, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Pear] River Polymers, Inc. et al, (Pearl River) move to require that the cross-appellants, ClearValue, Inc. and Richard Alan Haase, pay for "all costs associated with preparing, copying, and collating and printing the Joint2 CLEARVALUE v. PEARL RIVER 2 Appendix, and to impose any other relief deemed appropriate." The cross-appellants respond and propose to pay to Pearl River the costs resulting from the cross-appellants’ improper designation of material for the joint appendix.

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

The cross-appellants respond and agree with Pearl River that they improperly cited in their briefs to large amounts of testimony and documents in violation of Fed. Cir. R. 830. We note such a violation not only requires the appellant to include the materials in the joint appendix at a significant cost and effort but also suggests that this court must spend a great deal of time scouring the pages to find the asserted relevant matter.

The reply brief filed by the cross-appellants cites indiscriminately to an entire 797-page transcript for what Pearl River asserts is merely an exchange of three questions and answers within those 797 pages. The reply brief filed by the cross-appellants also cites to an entire 344-page motion for summary judgment response brief, even though this court's rules clearly prohibit including such an item in its entirety without leave of court. Fed. Cir. R. 30(a)(2)(E). The opening brief filed by the appellants indiscriminately cites to an entire 195-page training manual, and Pearl River asserts in its motion without objection by the cross-appellants that only a few of those pages are relevant to the issues in that brief.

We appreciate that counsel for the cross-appellants now concedes the errors and offers to pay Pearl River for the indiscriminate references, but mere payment of the excess costs will not cure the indiscriminate or inappropriate references in the briefs. Thus, we deem it appropriate to require that the cross-appellants file corrected briefs, citing in its opening brief only to the pages of the training manual that are relevant to the issues it raises, and citing in its reply brief only to the pages of the transcript or summary judgment response brief that are at3 3 CLEARVALUE v. PEARL RIVER issue.! We also deem it appropriate to require that the cross-appellants prepare a corrected joint appendix that includes the items required by Fed. R. App. P. 30 and Fed. Cir. R. 30(a)(2), items cited by Pear] River in its briefs, and only those items properly cited by the cross-appellants in their briefs. No other changes to the briefs should be made.

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

Accordingly, Ir Is ORDERED THAT: (1) Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 30(b)(2), Pearl River's motion is granted to the extent that the cross-appellants are directed to pay $2,900 to Pearl River within 14 days of the date of filing of this order.

(2) The cross-appellants are directed to file corrected briefs as explained above. The corrected briefs are due within 14 days of the date of filing of this order.?

(8) The cross-appellants are directed to file a corrected joint appendix within 21 days of the date of filing of this order, as explained above.

For THE COURT AUG 0 1 2011 /si Jan

Horbaly ys court {L&D Date Jan Horbaly “THE FE

DERAL CIRCUIT Clerk

AUG 01 2041 JAN HORBALY

CLERK 1 Cross-appellants may of course include a few pages before and after the relevant testimony passages, to provide context for the cited matter. Fed. Cir. R. 30(a)(2)(B). ;

2 Oross-Appellants may either file corrected briefs or make corrections to the briefs previously filed, if appropriate. See Practice Note following Fed. Cir. R. 32.4 CLEARVALUE Vv. PEARL RIVER

Figure on page 4 of the opinion

ec: Arnold Anderson Vickery, Esq.

Gary M. Hoffman, Esq.

88

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

Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., No. 11-1078 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2011).

Record ID
CAFC-11-1078-20110801
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-11-1078-20110801

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.