OBB Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to subscribe to the Orange Book Blog newsletter. If a new post is added during the day, you'll receive it by e-mail the next morning.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Orange Book Blog is published for informational purposes only; it contains no legal advice whatsoever. Publication of Orange Book Blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. Orange Book Blog is Aaron Barkoff's personal website and it is intended for other attorneys. Orange Book Blog is not edited by McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. ("MHM") or its clients. No part of Orange Book Blog--whether information, commentary, or other--may be attributed to MHM or its clients. MHM represents many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and therefore Orange Book Blog may occasionally report on news that relates to MHM clients. Orange Book Blog will always strive to be unbiased. All information on Orange Book Blog should be double-checked for its accuracy and current applicability. -- © Aaron F. Barkoff 2006-2017

« FDA Grants Baxter's Petition for Second 30-Month Stay Relating to Suprane | Main | Federal Circuit Allows Par's Appeal of ASACOL Declaratory Judgment Decision to Proceed »

June 30, 2011



Does this call into question the CAFC's Tivo v. Echostar en banc decision from April? The parties settled the matter post-opinion but before the mandate, and jointly asked the CAFC to dismiss the pending appeal as moot. The CAFC refused, by en banc order of May 10, to dismiss the appeal:

"...we determine that granting the motion to dismiss, which would result in a modification or vacatur of our en banc judgment, is neither required nor a proper use of the judicial system."

Will someone make the argument that the opinion, even though en banc, is not controlling law??

The comments to this entry are closed.