Anvik Corporation v. Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ANVIK CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
V.
SHARP CORPORATION AND
SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
Defendants-Petitioners.

Miscellaneous Docket No. 965

On petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1292(b) from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York in case no. 07-CV-
0825, Judge Stephen C. Robinson.

ON PETITION

Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation
(Sharp) petition for permission to appeal the order certi-
fied by the United States District Court for the Southern

<!-- PageBreak -->

District of New York in Anvik Corp. v. Sharp Corp., No.
1:07-CV-0825, as one involving a controlling question of
law as to which there is substantial ground for difference
of opinion and for which an immediate appeal may mate-
rially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(b) and (c). Nikon Corporation moves
for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in support of the
petition. Anvik opposes. Nikon replies.

Anvik filed lawsuits alleging patent infringement un-
der 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) against Nikon and eleven of
Nikon's customers, including Sharp, related to the use of
Nikon's scanning lithography equipment. Sharp filed a
motion for summary judgment asserting inter alia, that
because Anvik's asserted patent claims are method of use,
as opposed to method of manufacturing claims, these
claims cannot serve as a basis of liability under section
271(g). In an order dated August 11, 2010, the district
court denied the motion. The district court also denied
Sharp's motion for reconsideration, but certified the
August 11 order for interlocutory appeal.

The decision whether to grant a petition for permis-
sion to appeal is within this court's discretion. See In re
Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation, 903 F.2d
822 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, we conclude that inter-
locutory appeal is not warranted.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for permission to appeal is denied.

(2) Nikon's motion for leave to file a brief amicus cu-
riae is denied.

<!-- PageBreak -->

FOR THE COURT

JUL 8 2011

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Christopher Chad Johnson, Esq.
Robert W. Adams, Esq.
Matthew M. D'Amore, Esq.

$20

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
JUL 0 8 2011

JAN HORBALY
CLERK