Perkinelmer, Inc. And Ntd Laboratories v. Intema Limited

Federal Circuit

Perkinelmer, Inc. And Ntd Laboratories v. Intema Limited

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedFebruary 29, 2012

Docket2011-1577

StatusUnpublished

This text of Perkinelmer, Inc. And Ntd Laboratories v. Intema Limited (Perkinelmer, Inc. And Ntd Laboratories v. Intema Limited) 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

Perkinelmer, Inc. And Ntd Laboratories v. Intema Limited, (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

ij];{ntteb ~tate~

PERKINELMER, INC. AND NTD LABORATORIES, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. INTEMA LIMITED, Defendant-Appellant.

2011-1577

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in case no. 09-CV-10176, Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV.

ON MOTION

Before REYNA, Circuit Judge. ORDER

Intema, Inc. moves "for leave not to reply" to portions of the appellees brief that are directed to the issues of validity over the Davies European patent application, the Thilaganathan article, and a Snijders book, or, in the alternative for an enlarged reply brief. The appellees PERKINELMER v. INTEMA 2

oppose. Intema replies. Intema also moves for an exten- sion of time to file its reply brief.

Appellees may present "all arguments supported by the record and advanced in the trial court in support of the judgment as an appellee, even if those particular arguments were rejected or ignored by the trial court." Bailey v. Dart Container Corp. of Michigan, 292 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The appellees presented arguments to the district court with respect to the above-noted issues during summary judgment briefing. Thus, PerkinElmer may present the same arguments here, even if as Intema asserts the district court did not consider the issues in reaching its ultimate determination. However, the rele- vance and merits of those arguments are left to the dis- cretion of the merits panel.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motions for "leave not to reply" and for an enlarged reply brief are denied.

(2) The motion for an extension of time is granted. Intema's reply brief is due within 14 days of the filing of this order. FOR THE COURT FEB 292012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Bradford J. Badke, Esq. Lawrence Rosenthal, Esq. s24 FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

FEB 2 9 2U12 JAN HORBALY CLERK

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

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

ij];{ntteb ~tate~

PERKINELMER, INC. AND NTD LABORATORIES, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. INTEMA LIMITED, Defendant-Appellant.

2011-1577

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in case no. 09-CV-10176, Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV.

ON MOTION

Before REYNA, Circuit Judge. ORDER

Intema, Inc. moves "for leave not to reply" to portions of the appellees brief that are directed to the issues of validity over the Davies European patent application, the Thilaganathan article, and a Snijders book, or, in the alternative for an enlarged reply brief. The appellees PERKINELMER v. INTEMA 2

oppose. Intema replies. Intema also moves for an exten- sion of time to file its reply brief.

Appellees may present "all arguments supported by the record and advanced in the trial court in support of the judgment as an appellee, even if those particular arguments were rejected or ignored by the trial court." Bailey v. Dart Container Corp. of Michigan, 292 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The appellees presented arguments to the district court with respect to the above-noted issues during summary judgment briefing. Thus, PerkinElmer may present the same arguments here, even if as Intema asserts the district court did not consider the issues in reaching its ultimate determination. However, the rele- vance and merits of those arguments are left to the dis- cretion of the merits panel.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motions for "leave not to reply" and for an enlarged reply brief are denied.

(2) The motion for an extension of time is granted. Intema's reply brief is due within 14 days of the filing of this order. FOR THE COURT FEB 292012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Bradford J. Badke, Esq. Lawrence Rosenthal, Esq. s24 FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

FEB 2 9 2U12 JAN HORBALY CLERK

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Perkinelmer, Inc. And Ntd Laboratories v. Intema Limited, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkinelmer-inc-and-ntd-laboratories-v-intema-limi-cafc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack