Re: JMRI case -- Implementation of the Federal Circuit's Opinion

[Rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > "Technically, the Federal Circuit's ruling will have no precedential,
> > effect. Because of an unusual quirk in US law, the court had to apply
> > the legal standards of a sister appellate court, the 9th Circuit Court
> > of Appeals; and the Federal Circuit's interpretation of 9th Circuit law
> > has no precedential value. "Even a future Federal Circuit case on this
> > area of the law must look again to the regional [9th] circuit and not
> > the Federal Circuit interpretation," according to Harold Wegner, a
> > partner in the Washington, DC office of Foley & Lardner."
>
> It follows that Katzer has invited the District Court to ignore the
> CAFC's ruling:
>
> http://jmri.net/k/docket/230.pdf

>>> It follows that Katzer has invited the District Court to ignore the 
CAFC's ruling: <<<

Unfortunately, many posters in this group do not appreciate your wisdom 
Alex.

"[In} Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903, at 
909 (Fed.Cir.1984), this court said:

Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters
in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which
each count originated, including the law there applicable. In this
manner, we desire to avoid exacerbating the problem of intercircuit
conflicts in non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be
expected to look over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as
to those claims over which our subject matter jurisdiction is
exclusive. [Footnote omitted.]
...
The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and
in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223
USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc)

"Oh my", exclaimed Jacobsen, Moglen and Lessig, "Why, after all our spin?"

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) --

-- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --