Maynard v. Philadelphia Cervical Collar Co.

87 F. App'x 168
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedJanuary 14, 2004
DocketNo. 03-1517
StatusPublished

This text of 87 F. App'x 168 (Maynard v. Philadelphia Cervical Collar Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Maynard v. Philadelphia Cervical Collar Co., 87 F. App'x 168 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Opinion

ON MOTION

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Philadelphia Cervical Collar Company, Inc. et al. move to dismiss Steven Maynard’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and for sanctions and costs. Maynard has not responded.

Maynard sued the defendants for patent infringement. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. This court affirmed that dismissal on August 15, 2001. In April 2002, Maynard moved in the Kentucky district court to transfer the case to the New Jersey district court. On May 3, 2002, the Kentucky district court noted that the case was over and overruled the motion to transfer as moot. Maynard sought “en banc review” by the judges of that district court. On July 8, 2002, the district court overruled Maynard’s motion and directed that the clerk not accept further filings from Maynard. Maynard appealed the May and July orders to this court. We dismissed the appeals for failure to pay the filing fee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 F. App'x 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maynard-v-philadelphia-cervical-collar-co-cafc-2004.