Summary
concluding that Appointments Clause challenges not raised in the opening brief are forfeited
Summary of this case from McIntosh v. Dep't of Def.Opinion
2018-2239 2018-2240, -2310 2019-1000 2019-1002, -1003, -1027, -1029
11-01-2019
CUSTOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellant v. DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, Dish Network LLC, Appellees Customedia Technologies, LLC, Appellant v. Dish Network Corporation, Dish Network LLC, Cross-Appellants Customedia Technologies, LLC, Appellant v. Dish Network Corporation, Dish Network LLC, Appellees Customedia Technologies, LLC, Appellant v. Dish Network Corporation, Dish Network LLC, Cross-Appellants
Raymond William Mort, III, The Mort Law Firm, PLLC, Austin, TX, for appellant. Eliot Damon Williams, Baker Botts LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for appellees. Also represented by George Hopkins Guy, III; Ali Dhanani, Michael Hawes Houston, TX.
Raymond William Mort, III, The Mort Law Firm, PLLC, Austin, TX, for appellant.
Eliot Damon Williams, Baker Botts LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for appellees. Also represented by George Hopkins Guy, III; Ali Dhanani, Michael Hawes Houston, TX.
ON MOTION
Per Curiam. ORDER
In each of the above-captioned appeals, Customedia Technologies, LLC submits a notice of supplemental authority identifying this court’s recent decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. , No. 2018-2140, ––– F.3d ––––, 2019 WL 5616010 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2019). That decision vacated and remanded for the matter to be decided by a new panel of Administrative Patent Judges ("APJs") at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after this court concluded that the APJs’ appointments violated the Appointments Clause. Customedia’s letters seek to assert the same challenge here, which the court construes as a motion to vacate the Board decisions here and remand in accordance with Arthrex .
We conclude that Customedia has forfeited its Appointments Clause challenges. "Our law is well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived." SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp. , 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. , 424 F.3d 1293, 1320–21 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ). That rule applies with equal force to Appointments Clause challenges. See, e.g. , Island Creek Coal Co. v. Wilkerson , 910 F.3d 254, 256 (6th Cir. 2018) ; Turner Bros., Inc. v. Conley , 757 F. App'x 697, 699–700 (10th Cir. 2018) ; see also Arthrex , at ––––, slip op. at 29 (emphasizing that Appointments Clause challenges are not jurisdictional and that the court was granting relief only when the party had properly raised the challenge on appeal). Customedia did not raise any semblance of an Appointments Clause challenge in its opening briefs or raise this challenge in a motion filed prior to its opening briefs. Consequently, we must treat that argument as forfeited in these appeals.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT :
The motions to vacate and remand are denied.