Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

NobelBiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C.

Minority Opinion Calls for En Banc Review of O2 Micro

NobelBiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24780 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2017) (Per curiam: O’Malley dissenting (with Newman, Reyna)) (E.D. Tex.: Schroeder, Schneider) (3 of 5 stars)

Fed Cir denies NobelBiz’s petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc. The court’s mandate, based on the non-precedential panel decision (2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12946) will issue shortly.

Dissent: Judge O’Malley would have granted the petition. In her view, the panel opinion, by relying on O2 Micro, 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008), to find error in the district court’s adoption of certain plain-and-ordinary-meaning constructions for technical terms, promoted confusion about the roles of juries and judges in the infringement inquiry. “It is time we provided much needed guidance en banc about O2 Micro’s reach.” Dissent at 2.

KEYWORDS: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION; EN BANC; PLAIN AND ORDINARY MEANING