Partners Sean Murray and Jeremiah Helm Analyze Cautionary Tale of Fed. Circ. Word Limits in Law360 Column
In the latest installment of Knobbe Martens’ Law360 series on noteworthy Federal Circuit opinions, partners Sean Murray and Jeremiah Helm discuss the recent decision in Medtronic Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. that highlights administrative pitfalls that “will keep appellate lawyers up late at night.”
In the Medtronic Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. decision, the court ultimately ruled that Medtronic waived an argument by citing a brief in a related appeal against Teleflex, effectively adding material to their existing brief and exceeding the 14,000-word limit. Murray and Helm write: “The case illustrates the pitfalls facing parties in complex patent cases involving numerous disputed issues that cannot all be addressed within the strict word limits for appellate briefs.”
While acknowledging the concern this decision might cause for appellate lawyers, Murray and Helm provide a key instructive takeaway from the case. “When appealing a case involving too many issues to address within the Federal Circuit's word limit, it can sometimes make sense to omit an issue that will be addressed in a parallel, co-pending appeal against the same party. If you prevail on the issue in the parallel appeal, the issue will be collateral estoppel in your appeal,” they maintain. On the other hand, according to Murray and Helm, that strategy backfired in Medtronic because the appellate court never reached the issue in the parallel appeal and ruled that Medtronic had waived the issue in the main appeal.
