|
|
|
|
|
|
by tzs
4037 days ago
|
|
|
On that last part, so CAFC gets the case if it included patent claims, even if neither party is appealing any of the patent issues? That raises the possibility of copyright plaintiffs tossing in a patent claim that they have no intention of trying to actually win on, just to make sure that they will get CAFC's view of copyright instead of the 9th Circuit's view. |
|
|
The CAFC itself would be bound to apply 9th Circuit precedent, as it purported to do here. Again in principle, a prior copyright decision by the CAFC applying 9th Circuit law would not be binding precedent on a CAFC panel hearing some later copyright case arising out of the 9th Circuit.