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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

ST. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. Matsushita Electric Industrial, No. 12-1348 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2012)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 12-1348
Decided
August 3, 2012
Judge
Lourie, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. Wniteb of

~tate~ ~ourt ~peaI~ for tbe jfe beraI

~ircuit

ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

CONSULTANTS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF AND

AMERICA,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

JVC AMERICAS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

NOKIA CORPORATION AND NOKIA, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

PALM, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

KYOCERA WIRELESS CORPORATION

AND

KYOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

2ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC 2

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

VIVITAR CORPORATION, PETTERS GROUP

WORLDWIDE, LLC, POLAROID CONSUMER

ELECTRONICS, LLC, POLAROID HOLDING

COMPANY, AND POLAROID CORP.,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

HTC CORPORATION, HTC (BVI) CORP" AND HTC

AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. AND RESEARCH IN

MOTION CORP.,

Defendants-Appellees.

2012-1348, -1349, -1350

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in case nos. 04-CV-1436, 06-CV-0404, and 08-CV-0371, Judge Leonard P. Stark.

ON MOTION

Before LOURIE, SCHALL and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion
Figure on page 2 of the opinion

ORDER.

Defendants-Appellees move to dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction and move for fees and costs. St.3 3 ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. (St. Clair") does not oppose the dismissal without prejudice to refiling after entry of final judgment but opposes costs and fees. Defendants-Appellees reply.

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted to the extent that the ap peals are dismissed as premature.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

AUG 032012

lsi Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Dominic E. Massa, Esq.

Mark Andrew Woodmansee, Esq. Huan-Yi Lin, Esq. Robert Francis Perry, Esq. Ralph Terrance Rader, Esq. Charlene M. Morrow, Esq. u.s. couJtan.~

FOR John G. Day, Esq. THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Richard de Bodo, Esq.

AUG 03 ZOlZ Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq.

JANHORBALY s25 ClERK

_A_U_G_0_3_2_012_ _

ISSUED AS MANDATE:

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

ST. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. Matsushita Electric Industrial, No. 12-1348 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2012).

Record ID
CAFC-12-1348-20120803
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1348-20120803

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.