The article discusses the limitations imposed by the mandate rule on district courts regarding patent infringement cases. It emphasizes that once an appeal is filed and a mandate is returned, district courts cannot revisit issues already decided, including matters related to Section 285. The rule prevents reconsideration of issues unless explicitly instructed otherwise. While some exceptions exist, the determination of a prevailing party in Section 285 motions must occur before the return of a mandate, reinforcing the need for clear adherence to appellate directives in legal proceedings.
"When the patent infringement issue is already covered by a mandate returned from the Federal Circuit, a district court, absent explicit instructions in the mandate, is not allowed to reconsider those issues previously decided, which includes the Section 285 issues."
"The mandate rule compels compliance on remand with the dictates of a superior court and forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court."
"A Section 285 award is not merely an award of attorneys' fees at the end of litigation but rather an analysis of the totality of a case that determines the issue of 'prevailing party.'"
"While federal court practice has certain exceptions, a Section 285 motion is a consideration of the entirety of the case and its proper consideration is before a mandate is returned on the patent infringement issue."
Collection
[
|
...
]