Case: 17-2307
`
`Document: 44-1
`
`Page:1
`
`Filed: 06/19/2018
`
`(1 of 5)
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`Gnited States Court of Appeals
`for the federal Circuit
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`UNIFIED PATENTSINC.,
`Appellee
`
`2017-2307
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-
`00364.
`
`JUDGMENT
`
`ROBERT GREENSPOON,Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC,
`Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by
`GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Gonsalves Law Firm, Falls
`Church, VA.
`
`DAVID LANGDON CAVANAUGH, Wilmer Cutler Picker-
`ing Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for
`_appellee. Also represented by GREGORY H.
`[.ANTIER,
`ANURADHA SIVARAM,
`JONATHAN RUDOLPH KOMINEK
`STROUD, DANIEL V. WILLIAMS.
`
`

`

`Case: 17-2307
`
`Document: 44-1
`
`Page:2_
`
`Filed: 06/19/2018
`
`(2 of 5)
`
`THIS CAUSE having been heard andconsidered,it is
`
`ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
`
`PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and
`REYNA, Circuit Judges).
`
`AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
`
`ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
`
`
`June 19, 2018
`Date
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`

`

`Case: 17-2307
`
`Document: 44-2
`
` Page:1_
`
`Filed: 06/19/2018
`
`(3 of 5)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERALCIRCUIT
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF
`JUDGMENT WITHOUT OPINION
`
`JUDGMENT ENTERED: 06/19/2018
`
`The judgmentof the court in your case was entered today pursuant to Rule 36. This Court affirmed the judgment
`or decision that was appealed. Noneof the relief sought in the appeal was granted. No opinion accompanied the
`judgment. The mandate will be issued in due course.
`
`Information is also provided aboutpetitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing en banc. The questions
`and answersare those frequently asked and answeredby the Clerk's Office.
`
`Costs are taxed against the appellant in favor of the appellee under Rule 39. The party entitled to costs is
`provided a bill of costs form and an instruction sheet with this notice.
`
`The parties are encouraged to stipulate to the costs. A bill of costs will be presumed correct in the absence of a
`timely filed objection.
`
`Costs are payable to the party awardedcosts. If costs are awarded to the government, they should be paid to
`the Treasurer of the United States. Where costs are awarded against the government, payment should be madeto
`the person(s) designated under the governing statutes, the court's orders, and the parties’ written settlement
`agreements. In cases betweenprivate parties, payment should be made to counselfor the party awarded costsor,if
`the party is not represented by counsel, to the party pro se. Payment of costs should not be sent to the court. Costs
`should be paid promptly.
`
`If the court also imposed monetary sanctions, they are payable to the opposing party unless the court's opinion
`provides otherwise. Sanctions should be paid in the same wayascosts.
`
`Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed to FRAP 34(g) which states that the clerk may
`destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives
`notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandate is issued.)
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`cc: David Langdon Cavanaugh
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Robert Greenspoon
`Gregory H. Lantier
`Anuradha Sivaram
`Jonathan Rudolph Kominek Stroud
`Daniel V. Williams
`
`17-2307 - American Vehicular Sciences v. Unified Patents Inc.
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. IPR2016-00364
`
`

`

`Case: 17-2307
`
`Document: 44-3.
`
`Page:1
`
`Filed: 06/19/2018
`
`(4 of 5)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439
`
`PETER R. MARKSTEINER
`CLERK OF COURT
`
`202-275-8000
`
`Information Sheet
`
`Petitions for Rehearing and Petitions for Hearing and Rehearing En Banc
`
`1. When is a petition for rehearing appropriate?
`
`The Federal Circuit grants few petitions for rehearing each year. These petitions for
`rehearing are rarely successful because they typically fail to articulate sufficient
`grounds upon which to grant them. Of note, petitions for rehearing should not be used
`to reargue issues previously presented that were not accepted by the merits panel
`during initial consideration of the appeal. This is especially so when the court has
`entered a judgmentof affirmance without opinion underFed. Cir. R. 36. Such
`dispositions are entered if the court determines the judgment ofthe trial court is based
`on findings that are not clearly erroneous, the evidence supporting the jury verdict is
`sufficient, the record supports the trial court’s ruling, the decision of the administrative
`agency warrants affirmance under the appropriate standardof review,or the judgment
`or decision is without an errorof law.
`
`2. When is a petition for hearing/rehearing en banc appropriate?
`
`En banc consideration is rare. Each three-judge merits panel is charged with deciding
`individual appeals under existing Federal Circuit law as established in precedential
`opinions. Because each merits panel may enter precedential opinions, a party seeking
`en bancconsideration must typically show that either the merits panel has(1)failed to
`follow existing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court or Federal Circuit precedent or (2)
`followed Federal Circuit precedent that the petitioning party now seeks to have
`overruled by the court en banc. Federal Circuit Internal Operating Procedure #13
`identifies several reasons when the Federal Circuit may opt to hear a matter en banc.
`
`3. Is it necessaryto file either of these petitions before filing a petition for
`a writ certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court?
`
`No. A petition for a writ of certiorari maybefiled once the court has issued a final
`judgmentin a case.
`
`For additional information andfiling requirements, please refer to Fed.
`Cir. R. 40 (Petitions for Rehearing) and Fed.Cir. R. 35 (Petitions for
`
`Hearing or Rehearing En Banc).
`
`Revised May 10, 2018
`
`

`

`Case: 17-2307 Page:1_Filed: 06/19/2018Document: 44-4 (5 of 5)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439
`
`PETER R. MARKSTEINER
`CLERK OF COURT
`
`202-275-8000
`
`Information Sheet
`
`Filing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`
`There is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from
`judgmentsof the Federal Circuit. Instead, a party mustfile a petition for a writ of
`certiorari which the Supreme Courtwill grant only when there are compelling reasons. See
`Supreme Court Rule 10.
`
`Time. The petition must be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States within 90 days
`of the entry of judgment in this Court or within 90 days of the denial of a timely petition for
`rehearing. The judgmentis entered on the day the Federal Circuit issues a final decision in
`your case. The time does not run from the issuance of the mandate. See Supreme Court
`Rule 138.
`
`
`Fees. Either the $300 docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with
`an affidavit in support thereof must accompanythepetition. See Supreme Court Rules 38
`and 39.
`
`Authorized Filer. The petition must be filed by a memberof the bar of the Supreme Court
`of the United States or by the petitioner as a self-represented individual.
`
`Formatof a Petition. The Supreme Court Rules are very specific about the content and
`formatting of petitions. See Supreme Court Rules 14, 33, 34. Additional information is
`available at https://‘www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/rules guidance.aspx.
`
`Number of Copies. Forty copies of a petition must befiled unless the petitioneris
`proceeding in forma pauperis, in which case an original and ten copies of both the petition
`for writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis mustbefiled.
`See Supreme Court Rule 12.
`
`Filing. Petitions are filed in paper at Clerk, Supreme Court ofthe United States, 1 First
`Street, NE, Washington, DC 205438.
`
`Effective November 13, 2017, electronicfiling is also required for filings submitted by
`parties represented by counsel. See Supreme Court Rule 29.7. Additional information
`aboutelectronic filing at the Supreme Courtis available at
`https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx.
`
`No documentsarefiled at the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit provides no
`information to the Supreme Court unless the Supreme Courtasksfor the information.
`
`Revised May 10, 2018
`
`

`

`Case: 17-2307
`
`Document:55
`
`Page:1_
`
`Filed: 08/27/2018
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`17-2307
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC,
`Appellant
`
`UNIFIED PATENTSINC.,
`Appellee
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office in case no. IPR2016-00364 Administrative
`Patent Judge Jennifer Meyer Chagnon, Administrative Patent Judge Scott C. Moore, Administrative Patent
`Judge TrevorM. Jefferson
`
`MANDATE
`
`In accordance with the judgmentof this Court, entered June 19, 2018, and pursuant to Rule 41 (a) of
`the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`