You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Miken Composites, L.L.C. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.

Citation: 125 F. App'x 298Docket: Misc. No. 783

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; March 6, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Miken Composites, L.L.C. submitted a petition for permission to appeal a certified order from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, claiming it involves a controlling question of law with substantial grounds for differing opinions, which could materially advance the litigation's resolution. Miken sought consolidation of this appeal with the ongoing case Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., case number 05-1103, to address common claim construction issues, as the district courts reached different conclusions regarding the patent claims at issue. In response, Hillerich & Bradsby Co. opposed the consolidation request. The court, referencing its discretion in granting such interlocutory appeals per established precedent, ultimately decided that an appeal was not warranted. Consequently, the court denied Miken's petition for appeal and deemed the motion to consolidate moot.

Legal Issues Addressed

Consolidation of Appeals in Patent Claim Construction

Application: Miken Composites, L.L.C. sought to consolidate its appeal with an ongoing case to address similar claim construction issues, but the request was rendered moot following the denial of the appeal.

Reasoning: Miken sought consolidation of this appeal with the ongoing case Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., case number 05-1103, to address common claim construction issues, as the district courts reached different conclusions regarding the patent claims at issue.

Interlocutory Appeals Under Judicial Discretion

Application: The court exercised its discretion and determined that the appeal did not meet the criteria warranting interlocutory review.

Reasoning: The court, referencing its discretion in granting such interlocutory appeals per established precedent, ultimately decided that an appeal was not warranted.