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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Core Optical Technologies, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 22-120 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2022)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 22-120
Decided
April 5, 2022
Judge
Cunningham, J.
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

CORE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff-Respondent

v.

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant-Petitioner

2022-120

On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:21-cv-02428-VC, Judge Vince Chhabria.

ON PETITION

Before PROST, REYNA and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Juniper Networks, Inc. petitions for permission to appeal from an interlocutory order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denying Juniper’s motion to dismiss, which the district court2 2 CORE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.

certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Core Optical Technologies, LLC opposes the petition. Under § 1292(b), a district court may certify that an order that is not otherwise appealable is one involving a controlling question 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. Ultimately, this court must exercise its own discretion in deciding whether to grant permission to appeal an interlocutory order. See In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Pat. Litig., 903 F.2d 822, 822 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, we conclude that we should not permit an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition for permission to appeal is denied.

FOR THE COURT

April 5, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

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

Core Optical Technologies, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 22-120 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2022).

Record ID
CAFC-22-120-20220405
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-22-120-20220405

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.