Joseph M. Cacace was quoted in Reuters Legal and Law360 articles reporting on the precedential decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit defining the limits of appellate review of remand orders related to patent counterclaims.
Mr. Cacace and Howard M. Cooper persuaded the Federal Circuit to reject the defendants’ argument that the America Invents Act overrides a clear statutory bar to appellate review of an order remanding the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The court ruled that the defendants' patent counterclaims – previously remanded by the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts as not presenting a live case or controversy within the federal court’s jurisdiction – alone were insufficient to create an exception allowing it to consider the lower court's decision to send the case back to state court.
Mr. Cacace, who argued the appeal for the plaintiffs, said: "The Federal Circuit made it clear that the America Invents Act is not a one-way ticket to federal court for defendants who assert patent infringement counterclaims in an attempt to create federal jurisdiction where there is none. The court's ruling will help to curtail lengthy litigation over jurisdictional issues in cases where patent counterclaims that form the basis for removal fail to present a justiciable Article III case or controversy.”
Mr. Cacace concentrates his practice on complex civil matters, including business disputes and intellectual property litigation.