Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

Tafas v. Kappos

Document Cited authorities 1 Cited in 29 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Citation586 F.3d 1369
Decision Date13 November 2009
Docket NumberNo. 2008-1352.,2008-1352.
PartiesTriantafyllos TAFAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, and SmithKline Beecham Corporation (doing business as GlaxoSmithKline), Smithkline Beecham PLC, and Glaxo Group Limited (doing business as GlaxoSmithKline), Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. David J. KAPPOS, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

586 F.3d 1369

Triantafyllos TAFAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, and SmithKline Beecham Corporation (doing business as GlaxoSmithKline), Smithkline Beecham PLC, and Glaxo Group Limited (doing business as GlaxoSmithKline), Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. David J. KAPPOS, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 2008-1352.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

November 13, 2009.

Joshua Waldman, Scott R. McIntosh, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, James A. Toupin, Stephen Walsh, William G. Jenks, Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., William Lamarca, Raymond T. Chen, Janet A. Gongola, Nathan K. Kelley, Jennifer McDowell, Patent & Trademark Office, Arlington, VA, for Defendant-Appellant.

James E. Nealon and Steven J. Moore, Kelley, Drye & Warren, LLP, Washington, D.C., F. Christopher Mizzo, Peter J. Armenio, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Daniel Sean Trainor, Scott M. Abeles, William Bestani, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Carter G. Phillips, Jeffrey P. Kushan, David L. Fitzgerald, Virginia A. Seitz, Sidley Austin, LLP, Washington, DC, John M. Desmarais, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, New York, NY, Sherry Knowles, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Daniel B. Ravicher, Software Freedom Law Center, New York, NY, Robert Greene Sterne, Kenneth C. Bass, III, Jon E. Wright, Mark Fox Evens, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, Teresa Stanek Rea, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Ronald A. Schechter, David R. Marsh, Matthew M. Shultz, Kristan Lynn Lansbery, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Kevin Thomas Kramer, Stephanie Francoise Goeller, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP, Washington, DC, Jerry R. Selinger, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP, Dallas, TX, Arthur O. Klein, Klein & Vibber, P.C., Westport, CT, Mark A. Lemley, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, Heath W. Hoglund, Dolby Laboratories, Inc., San Francisco, CA, Vincent Napoleon, Philadelphia, PA, Scott Jeffrey Pivnick, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, McLean, VA, Buckmaster De Wolf, General Electric Company, Fairfield, CT, for Amicus Curiae.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, RADER, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.1

ORDER

MICHEL, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs-Appellees SmithKline Beecham Corp., SmithKline Beecham PLC, and Glaxo Group Limited (collectively "GlaxoSmithKline") and Defendants-Appellants David J. Kappos and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (collectively "Kappos") have filed a joint motion for dismissal of the appeal and to vacate the judgment of the district court below. Plaintiff-Appellee Triantafyllos Tafas has filed a response, joining in GlaxoSmithKline and Kappos' joint motion for dismissal of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Cornish v. Dudas ., Civil Action No. 07-1719 (RWR).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 4 d5 Junho d5 2010
    ......        IV. TAFAS CLAIM         In his amended complaint, Cornish challenges the same USPTO Final Rules challenged in Tafas v. Dudas, 541 F.Supp.2d 805 ... See Tafas v. Kappos, 586 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2009).         “ ‘Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases because their constitutional ......
  • Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 21 d3 Abril d3 2010
    ...as in Tandy, there is no question that FWS's and Reclamation's voluntary actions contributed to mooting the case. See Tafas v. Kappos, 586 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir.2009) (denying vacatur where "the agency itself has voluntarily withdrawn the regulations and thus set the stage for a declara......
  • Cornish v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 15 d3 Agosto d3 2012
    ......Thus, the court lacks         [885 F.Supp.2d 206] subject matter jurisdiction to hear Cornish's official capacity claims. II. TAFAS CLAIMS          As he did in Cornish I, Cornish challenges as unconstitutional the USPTO's August 2007 “Final Rules” and seeks a ... (citing Tafas v. Kappos, 586 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2009)). Here, Cornish's amended complaint refers repeatedly to the Tafas litigation and the “Final Rules published ......
  • Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 28 d1 Janeiro d1 2013
    ......The PTO was enjoined from enforcing the regulation by an opinion that was vacated and reconsidered in further appellate proceedings. See Tafas v. Dudas, 541 F.Supp.2d 805 (E.D.Va.2008), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345 (Fed.Cir.2009), vacated and reh'g en banc granted, 328 Fed.Appx. 658 (Fed.Cir.2009), stayed, 331 Fed.Appx. 748 (Fed.Cir.2009). The PTO then appears to have mooted the appeal by ......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Adjustments, Extensions, Disclaimers, and Continuations: When Do Patent Term Adjustments Make Sense?
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 41-2, March 2013
    • 1 d5 Março d5 2013
    ...rules. Tafas v. Dudas , 541 F. Supp. 2d 805, 808, 817 (E.D. Va. 2008). The Federal Circuit vacated this injunction in Tafas v. Kappos , 586 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009), but the USPTO later withdrew the proposed regulation changes. Press Release 09-21, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ......
  • Recalibrating Functional Claiming: A Way Forward
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 d3 Janeiro d3 2020
    ...to make—namely, procedural rules.” Tafas v. Dudas, 541 F. Supp. 2d 805, 812 (E.D. Va. 2008), reinstated sub nom. Tafas v. Kappos, 586 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The USPTO acquiesced and bound itself when it moved to dismiss the Tafas appeal on grounds of mootness. 40. This is explore......
  • Adjustments, Extensions, Disclaimers, and Continuations: When Do Patent Term Adjustments Make Sense?
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 41-3, June 2013
    • 1 d6 Junho d6 2013
    ...rules. Tafas v. Dudas , 541 F. Supp. 2d 805, 808, 817 (E.D. Va. 2008). The Federal Circuit vacated this injunction in Tafas v. Kappos , 586 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009), but the USPTO later withdrew the proposed regulation changes. Press Release 09-21, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ......
  • Composing the Law: An Interview with Derrick Wang, Creator of the Scalia/Ginsburg Opera
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 d3 Janeiro d3 2020
    ...to make—namely, procedural rules.” Tafas v. Dudas, 541 F. Supp. 2d 805, 812 (E.D. Va. 2008), reinstated sub nom. Tafas v. Kappos, 586 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The USPTO acquiesced and bound itself when it moved to dismiss the Tafas appeal on grounds of mootness. 40. This is explore......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT