Rogers v. Tristar Products, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedSeptember 23, 2011
Docket2011-1494
StatusUnpublished

This text of Rogers v. Tristar Products, Inc. (Rogers v. Tristar Products, Inc.) 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
Rogers v. Tristar Products, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Opinion

NOTE: This order is n0nprecedentia1. United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit BRUCE A. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, ' V. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND UNITED STATES, Defendant-Cross-Appellant. ` 2011-1494, -1495 Appea1s from the United States District C0urt for the Eastern District of Pennsy1vania in case n0. 11-CV-1111, Judge Eduard0 C. R0bren0. ON MOTION ORDER The United States moves for a stay of proceedings pending this c0urt’s decision in FLFMC u. Wham-O, N0. 2011-1067, and Unique Pr0d. S0lutions v. Hy-Grade Value, Inc., NOS. 2011-1254, -1284.

ROGERS V. TRISTAR PRODUCTS 2 On September 16, 2011, the President signed into law the Leahy-Smith America InVents Act, H.R. 1249, 112th Cong. (1st Sess. 2011), amending 35 U.S.C. § 292 and including the following text regarding the effective date of this provision: "The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to all cases, without exception, that are pend- ing on, or commenced on or after, the date of the enact- ment of this Act." Leahy-Smith America InVents Act, § 16(b)(4)- Accordingly, c IT ls ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. The briefing schedule is stayed (2) Each party shall advise the court within 21 days of the date of this order of the effect of this legislation on the status of this case. _ (3) The response shall contain any necessary motion deemed appropriate by the party, but may not exceed 15 pages FoR THE CoURT 2 3 2011 /s/ J an Horbaly Date J an H0rbaly Clerk ccc Edward T. Kang, Esq. Edward P. Bakos, Esq. Doug1as N. Letter, Esq. FILEB u.s. count or ms FOR 319 me FEoERAlP<§Rcun SEP 23 2011 .lAN HORBALY CLERK

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

Related

False marking
35 U.S.C. § 292

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rogers v. Tristar Products, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-tristar-products-inc-cafc-2011.