ELT Sight, Inc., et al v. EyeLight, Inc., et al
| ELT SIGHT, INC. and ELLIOT FRIEDMAN |
| EYELIGHT, INC. and MICHAEL S. BERLIN |
| MLASE A.G., JOHANES JUNGER, MARCUS ENDERS and AXEL WERBACH |
| 22-56076 |
| November 21, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Patent |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| ELLIOT FRIEDMAN V. EYELIGHT, INC., ET AL |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 10, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. [12627199] (CL) [Entered: 01/10/2023 12:32 PM] |
| Filing 11 Filed (ECF) Appellee Elliot Friedman reply to response to order to show cause dated 11/30/2022. Date of service: 12/28/2022. [12619249] [22-56076] (Larson, Stephen) [Entered: 12/28/2022 01:29 PM] |
| Filing 10 Filed (ECF) Appellants Michael S. Berlin and EyeLight, Inc. response to order to show cause dated 11/30/2022. Date of service: 12/21/2022. [12616140] [22-56076] (Meyer, Derek) [Entered: 12/21/2022 08:17 PM] |
| Filing 9 MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 01/10/2023, 11:00 a.m. PACIFIC Time. See order for instructions and details. [12609368] (CL) [Entered: 12/13/2022 01:16 PM] |
| Filing 8 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LCC): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal may not be final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (A district court order is . . . not appealable [under 1291] unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or unless judgment is entered in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).). The record further suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in civil actions arising under federal patent law. See 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1); Breed v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 253 F.3d 1173, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2001); see also 28 U.S.C. 1631 (providing that where jurisdiction is lacking, a federal court shall transfer the matter if it is in the interest of justice to do so); Amity Rubberized Pen Co. v. Mkt. Quest Grp. Inc., 793 F.3d 991, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2015). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall either move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellants elect to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. Any response to this order should also address, to the extent the challenged order is final and appealable, whether it is the interest of justice to transfer the matter. If appellants do not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [12599636] (JMR) [Entered: 11/30/2022 04:59 PM] |
| Filing 7 Added Attorney(s) Andrew J. Bedigian for party(s) Appellee ELT Sight, Inc. and Appellee Elliot Friedman, in case 22-56076. [12597712] (QDL) [Entered: 11/29/2022 09:44 AM] |
| Filing 6 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Andrew J. Bedigian (Larson LLP, 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400, Los Angeles, California 90071) for Appellees ELT Sight, Inc. and Elliot Friedman. Date of service: 11/29/2022. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12597709] [22-56076] (Bedigian, Andrew) [Entered: 11/29/2022 09:43 AM] |
| Filing 5 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 11/28/2022. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts.[12597469]. [22-56076] (AD) [Entered: 11/28/2022 06:44 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellants Michael S. Berlin and EyeLight, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 11/28/2022. [12597452] [22-56076] (Meyer, Derek) [Entered: 11/28/2022 06:15 PM] |
| Filing 3 Added Attorney(s) Derek Meyer for party(s) Appellant Michael S. Berlin and Appellant EyeLight, Inc., in case 22-56076. [12597328] (QDL) [Entered: 11/28/2022 04:27 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Derek J. Meyer (Prospect Law LLP, 120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, Illinois, 60602) for Appellants Michael S. Berlin and EyeLight, Inc.. Date of service: 11/28/2022. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12597302] [22-56076] (Meyer, Derek) [Entered: 11/28/2022 04:12 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Michael S. Berlin and EyeLight, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire due on 11/28/2022. Transcript ordered by 12/16/2022. Transcript due 01/17/2023. Appellants Michael S. Berlin and EyeLight, Inc. opening brief due 02/24/2023. Appellees ELT Sight, Inc. and Elliot Friedman answering brief due 03/27/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12592269] (JBS) [Entered: 11/21/2022 10:23 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
