Case: 24-1864 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 11/04/2024
`
`
`
`No. 2024-1864
`
`United States Court of AppealsUnited States Court of AppealsUnited States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals
`
`
`
`
`for the Federal Circuitfor the Federal Circuit
`
`for the Federal Circuitfor the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., GOOGLE LLC, INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
`and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern opib
`District of California, No. 5:20-cv-06128, Judge Edward J. Davila
`
`Motion for Leave to File Corrected Brief of
`Amicus Curiae PTAAARMIGAN LLC
`
`November 4, 2024
`
`
`
`
`DAVID E. BOUNDY
`
`POTOMAC LAW GROUP PLLC
`P.O. BOX 590638
`NEWTON, MA 02459
`(646) 472 9737
`DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com
`
`For Amicus Curiae
`PTAAARMIGAN LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2024-1864
`
`United States Court of AppealsUnited States Court of AppealsUnited States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals
`
`
`
`
`for the Federal Circuitfor the Federal Circuit
`
`for the Federal Circuitfor the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., GOOGLE LLC, INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
`and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern opib
`District of California, No. 5:20-cv-06128, Judge Edward J. Davila
`
`Motion for Leave to File Corrected Brief of
`Amicus Curiae PTAAARMIGAN LLC
`
`November 4, 2024
`
`
`
`
`DAVID E. BOUNDY
`
`POTOMAC LAW GROUP PLLC
`P.O. BOX 590638
`NEWTON, MA 02459
`(646) 472 9737
`DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com
`
`For Amicus Curiae
`PTAAARMIGAN LLC
`
`
`
`Case: 24-1864 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 11/04/2024
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`
`Counsel for amicus curiae certifies the following:
`
`1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`
`PTAAARMIGAN LLC
`
`2.
`
`The names of the real parties in interest represented by me as
`amici are as named in 1.
`
`3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own
`10 percent or more of the stock of the amici represented by me are:
`None
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The names of all law firms, partners, and associates that have
`appeared for the party or amici now represented by me in the trial
`court or agency or are expected to appear in this court are: David
`E. Boundy, Potomac Law Group PLLC.
`
`Related Cases, Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(5) and 47.5(b): None.
`
`This is neither a criminal case with organizational victims, nor a
`bankruptcy.
`
`
`Date: November 4, 2024
`
`
`
`/s/ David E. Boundy
` David E. Boundy
` For Amicus Curiae
`PTAAARMIGAN LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case: 24-1864 Document: 56 Page: 3 Filed: 11/04/2024
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27, amicus
`
`PTAAARMIGAN LLC respectfully requests leave to file a corrected
`
`brief. Amicus requested consent of all parties by email of October 31,
`
`2024. Counsel for Appellee Director of the USPTO promptly informed
`
`the undersigned that the government takes no position. Counsel for
`
`Appellants Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel did not respond.
`
`Amicus’ Brief was due October 23, 2024. Amicus timely submitted
`
`his Brief on October 22. The brief was docketed as ECF No. 51.
`
`After a Notice of Non-Compliance of October 28, amicus noticed
`
`several typographical errors and less-than-clear sentences that should
`
`be corrected. To better serve the Court by providing a more readable
`
`and accurate brief, Amicus PTAAARMIGAN respectfully seeks leave to
`
`file the attached corrected brief in substitution of their original brief.
`
`The corrected brief sought to be filed is being submitted concurrently
`
`with this motion.
`
`The proposed corrections were shared with counsel for Appellants
`
`and Appellee, as a compare of the October 23 brief as filed against the
`
`draft as of October 31.
`
`A complete list of the corrections made in the attached Corrected
`
`Opening Brief are listed as follows:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 24-1864 Document: 56 Page: 4 Filed: 11/04/2024
`
`• There are no changes to the Table of Contents.
`
`• The Table of Authorities is corrected and supplemented to
`
`correct errors. Microsoft’s Table of Authorities does not handle
`
`hyperlinks well; this corrected brief attempts to correct the
`
`URLs in the Table of Authorities to improve access to the cited
`
`documents. The effort was only partially successful: the URLs
`
`as they appear to the eye are correct, as clicked some will not
`
`directly yield the intended pages directly without further hand
`
`“coaxing.”
`
`• At page 15, the word “PTO’s documents” is replaced with
`
`“guidance relevant to this case.”
`
`• At page 18, footnote 9, a page cross-reference is corrected.
`
`• At page 19, the word “required” is replaced with the word
`
`“statutory.”
`
`• At page 19, the words “Both recommendations recommend” is
`
`replaced with “ACUS recommends.”
`
`• At page 23, a cite to Association of Flight Attendants is added.
`
`• At page 28, footnote 14, a page cross-reference is corrected.
`
`• At pages 29-30, the paragraph “The Director’s rebuttal
`
`argument” is entirely rewritten to cut two undeveloped points,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 24-1864 Document: 56 Page: 5 Filed: 11/04/2024
`
`and instead to focus down and develop only one. The
`
`amendment does not add new argument.
`
`• At page 32, a sentence is rewritten to eliminate a reference to
`
`subjective intent, and instead focus on objective conduct.
`
`• At page 33, the cross-reference to earlier pages of the brief is
`
`corrected.
`
`• Thoughout, single words are cut. On page 39, the last sentence
`
`of the Conclusion is cut. Various ellipses within quotations and
`
`cites are corrected.
`
`Amicus respectfully submits that these minor corrections do not
`
`alter the substance of the brief or add new arguments, and will aid the
`
`Court with its consideration of the appeal.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 24-1864 Document: 56 Page: 6 Filed: 11/04/2024
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, amicus respectfully requests that
`
`the Court grant leave to file the attached corrected Brief of amicus
`
`curiae.
`
`Date: November 4, 2024
`
`By: /s/ David E. Boundy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DAVID E. BOUNDY
` POTOMAC LAW GROUP PLLC
` P.O. BOX 590638
` NEWTON, MA 02459
`
`(646) 472 9737
`
` DBoundy@PotomacLaw.com
` Attorney for Amicus Curiae
`PTAAARMIGAN LLC
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 24-1864 Document: 56 Page: 7 Filed: 11/04/2024
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME
`LIMITATION, TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS AND TYPE STYLE
`REQUIREMENTS
`
`
`
`1. This motion complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal Rule
`of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B) or Federal Rule of Appellate
`Procedure 28.1(e)
`
` X The motion contains 475 words, excluding the parts of the
`brief exempted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
`27(d)(2) and Fed. Cir. R. 27(d).
`
`
`
`2. This motion complies with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule
`of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of
`Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(6).
`
` X The motion has been prepared in a proportionally spaced
`typeface using MS Word 2003 in 14 point Century
`Schoolbook font.
`
`
`
`Date: November 4, 2024
`
`By: /s/ David E. Boundy
`
`
`
`
`
` DAVID E. BOUNDY
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
