Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp.
437 F. App'x 947
Fed. Cir.
2011
Check Treatment
Docket

In re ECHEVARRIA-NORTH

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

660 F.3d 947

not within our jurisdiction to make.”). The Veterans Court in this case expressly determined that the record did not support invocation of the presumption of receipt.

(“Given the Board’s thorough discussion of the evidence, the parties’ arguments, and review of the record before the Court, the Court concludes that the presumption of receipt cannot be invoked in this case.”). Although the Veterans Court’s discussion perhaps could have been more thorough,2 its ultimate conclusion is not within our jurisdiction to review.3 See
.

Finally, we reject Ms. Echevarria-North’s assertion that the Veterans Court erred when it cited

, a case that post-dates the Board’s decision. We treat this assertion as an argument that the Veterans Court improperly applied a point of law retroactively, but we find that this argument is without merit. The Fithian case only discusses the well-established presumption of regularity and relies on cases that pre-date the Board’s decision for the law it applies, such as
, and
. Thus, the Veterans Court did not error when it cited that case.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Veterans Court is affirmed.

Costs

Each party shall bear its own costs.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERT BOSCH LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PYLON MANUFACTURING CORP., Defendant-Cross Appellant.

Nos. 2011-1363, 2011-1364.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2011.

660 F.3d 947

Before PROST, Circuit Judge.

Mark A. Hannemann, Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James A. Gale, Feldman Gale, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant-Cross Appellant.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Robert Bosch LLC moves for reconsideration of this court’s denial of Bosch’s motion to dismiss the appeals. Pylon Manufacturing Corp. opposes. Bosch replies.

On August 1, 2011,

, this court denied Bosch’s motion to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. That order explained that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) when the underlying case is final except for an accounting.

Bosch’s motion urges the court to draw a distinction between an “accounting” under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) and a “jury trial ... on the issues of damages and willfulness.” Such a distinction, however, is inconsistent with this court’s precedent. Section 1292(c)(2) does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with a damages trial. As this court has stated, the purpose of § 1292(c)(2) “allowing interlocutory appeals in patent cases was to permit a stay of a damages trial.”

. In fact, “this court has repeatedly denied, in unpublished opinions, motions to stay damages trials during appeals in patent cases.”

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion for reconsideration is denied.

WARNER CHILCOTT LABORATORIES IRELAND LIMITED, Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, and Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and Mylan Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 2011-1611.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2011.

660 F.3d 948

Dominick A. Conde, Diego Scambia, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, New York, NY, Brian L. Klock, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, Washington, DC, Jonathan MacKenzie Short, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Larry L. Shatzer, Shaun R. Snader, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, Washington, DC, Tung-On Kong, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Koh, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.

ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc. (Mylan) move for a stay, pending ap-

Notes

2
For example, the court expressly could have considered that the same New Jersey DMVA representative appears to have signed both the 1999 letter and the 2005 statement certifying that the 1999 letter was filed, and that the New Jersey DMVA apparently submitted multiple status inquires.
3
To the extent Ms. Echevarria-North contends that the “numerous inquiries” about her 1999 letter constitute an informal claim, that is a factual determination beyond our jurisdiction. See
. In addition, we note that none of these inquiries appears in the record before this court.