Rogers v. Tristar Products, Inc.

Federal Circuit

Rogers v. Tristar Products, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 2012

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. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit BRUCE A. ROGERS, Plain,tiff-Appellant, V. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., Defen,dant-Appellee, AND UNITED STATES, Defenclcmt-Cross-Appellant. ° 2011-1494, -1495 Appea1s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsy1vania in case no. 11-CV-1111, Judge Eduard0 C. R0breno. ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of Bruce A. R0gerS’s motion for panel rec0nsideration, IT IS ORDERED T1~1AT:

ROGERS V. TRISTAR PRODUCTS 2 TriStar Products, Inc. and the United States are directed to respond to Rogers’s arguments regarding the constitutionality of applying 35 U.S.C. § 292 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to this case within 30 days from the date of filing of this order. FoR THE CoURT FEB 1 5 /s/ Jan Horba1y Date J an Horba1y, Clerk FlLED cc: Edward T. Kang, Esq. U.S.C01JR|LOF APPEALS FOR EdWard P. Bakos, Esq. THE FE“ERALcmw'T Douglas N. Letter, Esq. |-'[B 1 5 2[]1Z 319 " .1ANHnnaA1v . cuin\<

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

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit BRUCE A. ROGERS, Plain,tiff-Appellant, V. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., Defen,dant-Appellee, AND UNITED STATES, Defenclcmt-Cross-Appellant. ° 2011-1494, -1495 Appea1s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsy1vania in case no. 11-CV-1111, Judge Eduard0 C. R0breno. ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of Bruce A. R0gerS’s motion for panel rec0nsideration, IT IS ORDERED T1~1AT:

ROGERS V. TRISTAR PRODUCTS 2 TriStar Products, Inc. and the United States are directed to respond to Rogers’s arguments regarding the constitutionality of applying 35 U.S.C. § 292 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to this case within 30 days from the date of filing of this order. FoR THE CoURT FEB 1 5 /s/ Jan Horba1y Date J an Horba1y, Clerk FlLED cc: Edward T. Kang, Esq. U.S.C01JR|LOF APPEALS FOR EdWard P. Bakos, Esq. THE FE“ERALcmw'T Douglas N. Letter, Esq. |-'[B 1 5 2[]1Z 319 " .1ANHnnaA1v . cuin\<

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-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack