The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-137•Healthestate, LLC v. United States
20-137Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSep 29, 2020
N
OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
HEALTHESTATE, LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant
ASM RESEARCH, LLC,
Defendant-Petitioner
______________________
2020-137
______________________
On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(d)(2) from the United States Court of
Federal Claims in No. 1:18-cv-00034-DAT, Judge David A.
Tapp.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before
NEWMAN, LOURIE, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Case: 20-137 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 09/29/2020
HEALTHESTATE, LLC v. US
2
ASM Research, LLC petitions for permission to appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2) from the interlocutory
order denying its motion to dismiss certified by the Unit-
ed States Court of Federal Claims. HEALTHeSTATE,
LLC (“HeS”) opposes the petition. The United States
submits a brief amicus curiae in response to this court’s
August 10, 2020 order. ASM moves for leave to file a
reply in support of its petition and a response to the
United States’ brief, each of which HeS opposes.
Under the express language of § 1292(d)(2), this court
has “discretion” whether to “permit an appeal” under the
provision. See Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.,
511 U.S. 863, 883 n.9 (1994) (noting “broad” discretion
under the similar provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for
interlocutory appeals from United States district courts).
Having considered the matter, we decline to permit
interlocutory review here.
Accordingly,
I
T IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for permission to appeal is denied.
(2) The motion for leave to file a reply is granted.
The reply, ECF No. 18-2, is accepted for filing.
(3) The motion for leave to file a response to the
United States’ brief is granted. The response, ECF No.
25-2, is accepted for filing.
September 29, 2020
Date
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s35
Case: 20-137 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 09/29/2020
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.