Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Northern California District Court | 278 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Northern California District Court

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT

"That is, apparently, why it started off in the Federal Circuit."

Everything was correct except for that sentence. The case started off in
Northern California District Court, which is in the Ninth Circuit. The Federal
Circuit doesn't have any courts at the district court level. It's really just a
court of appeals. The appeals can come from any district court in the country as
long as the subject matter is appropriate.

Having any of the claims being about patents is enough. The relative importance
of the claim is not relevant. The only thing that won't work is if the case has
nothing to do with patents until the defendant throws in an unrelated
counterclaim that involves a patent. That won't work anymore because of a rule
change. Apparently, the rules were changed because of the potential for abuse.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )