|
|
|
|
||
Re: Baxter and Hit Piece
"iF, Apple does not request
rehearing on those claims of the patents found to be valid and
infringed, then I believe Baxter can,t hurt us on those findings of the
CAFC." Based on what? How you distinguish this case from Fresenius? From Judge Newman dissent in Fresenius, summarizing litigation: "These judicial proceedings started with trial in the district court and the district court’s final judgment, then appeal to the Federal Circuit and our appellate final judgment [patents not invalid], followed by denial of rehearing and denial of rehearing en banc, followed by issuance of this court’s mandate, followed by denial of certiorari. This court remanded to the district court for the purpose of reviewing post-judgment damages, and the district court did so. That decision is the subject of this appeal.
My colleagues now hold that this entire litigation and decisional panoply is negated by the later decision of the Patent and Trademark Office of the issue of validity. My colleagues hold that the prior final adjudication by this court of validity and infringement is irrelevant, and that the later decision by the PTO overrides and displaces our prior adjudication, depriving the parties to that adjudication of their binding judgments."
|
return to message board, top of board |