Narrative Opinion Summary
Applera Corp. and Tropix, Inc. (Applera) and Enzo Biochem, Inc. et al. (Enzo Biochem) filed petitions seeking permission to appeal a claim construction order from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This order was certified for interlocutory review due to its identification of a controlling legal issue with substantial grounds for differing opinions, which could materially advance the resolution of the litigation. The Connecticut district court's order, issued on October 12, 2006, addressed disputed claim terms in five patents and noted a conflict with a similar order from the Southern District of New York. The parties indicated that no determinations regarding patent infringement or invalidity had been made or conceded. The court emphasized its discretion in granting permission for such appeals, referencing precedent. Ultimately, the court found insufficient grounds to warrant granting the petitions, leading to the denial of permission to appeal.
Legal Issues Addressed
Conflict in Claim Construction Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case involved a conflict between the claim construction order from the District of Connecticut and a similar order from the Southern District of New York, highlighting differing judicial interpretations.
Reasoning: The Connecticut district court's order, issued on October 12, 2006, addressed disputed claim terms in five patents and noted a conflict with a similar order from the Southern District of New York.
Discretion in Granting Interlocutory Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court exercised its discretion by referencing precedent and ultimately decided against granting the petitions for appeal despite acknowledging the order's potential impact on the litigation.
Reasoning: The court emphasized its discretion in granting permission for such appeals, referencing precedent. Ultimately, the court found insufficient grounds to warrant granting the petitions, leading to the denial of permission to appeal.
Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated whether the claim construction order was appropriate for interlocutory appeal based on its identification of a controlling legal issue with substantial grounds for differing opinions.
Reasoning: This order was certified for interlocutory review due to its identification of a controlling legal issue with substantial grounds for differing opinions, which could materially advance the resolution of the litigation.
Status of Patent Infringement or Invalidity Determinationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The parties confirmed that no determinations regarding patent infringement or invalidity were made, emphasizing the interlocutory nature of the appeal.
Reasoning: The parties indicated that no determinations regarding patent infringement or invalidity had been made or conceded.