Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the court addresses procedural matters concerning Gaia Technologies' request for a rehearing. Initially, Gaia sought permission to file a second petition for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en banc after the usual deadlines. The court granted this request partially by withdrawing its previous mandate and allowing the late submission of the petition. The core legal issues revolve around the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in *Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis*, particularly whether it mandates the affirmation of a trial judgment due to a corrected jurisdictional defect and if it pertains solely to diversity cases as opposed to federal question cases. The court instructed the parties to file supplemental briefs focusing on these issues, with an emphasis on brevity and relevance, and indicated it would decide on scheduling oral arguments after reviewing these briefs. The court emphasized that its current order cannot be cited as precedent according to Federal Circuit rules. The decision reflects procedural flexibility in response to significant legal developments and underscores the importance of jurisdictional considerations in appellate review.
Legal Issues Addressed
Motion for Leave to File Out of Timesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court permits Gaia Technologies to file a second petition for rehearing after the deadline, indicating flexibility in procedural timelines under certain circumstances.
Reasoning: The court withdraws the mandate issued on December 11, 1996, and allows Gaia to file a second petition for rehearing out of time.
Non-Citable Ordersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's order is designated as non-precedential, thereby restricting its use in future cases.
Reasoning: This order is not citable as precedent per Fed. Cir.R. 47.6 and requires compliance with specific court filing rules, including submission of 15 sets of briefs.
Supplemental Briefing Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Parties are instructed to submit additional briefs focusing on specific legal questions arising from a recent Supreme Court decision.
Reasoning: The parties are required to submit supplemental briefs within 30 days, not exceeding 30 pages, addressing whether the Supreme Court's decision in *Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis* compels affirmation of the trial judgment due to a timely cured jurisdictional defect, and whether *Caterpillar* should apply exclusively to diversity cases rather than federal question cases.