Maynard v. Philadelphia Cervical Collar Co.

87 F. App'x 168
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided January 14, 2004·No. No. 03-1517·Published

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.

Footnotes

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

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

87 F. App'x 168 (Maynard v. Philadelphia Cervical Collar Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.