ArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corporation, No. 16-1357 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2017)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Plaintiffs sued Defendants in 2010 for infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,296,805. After our most recent remand in this case, the district court inva lidated claims 24 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. RE44,153, the reissue of the ’805 patent. We conclude that the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction when it granted summary judgment, that the court properly followed our most recent mandate, and that the court properly exercised its discretion to deny ArcelorMittal’s Rule 56(d) request . Accordingly, we affirm.