Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
In the trademark portion of this case, we will be guided by
the relevant law in the Ninth Circuit, to the extent it can
be discerned, and not require the district court here to
follow conflicting rules, if any, arrived at in other
circuits.
Let me try to explain Rahul. The CAFC is saying the district
courts are not bound by the CAFC's rulings on any subject
matter other than patents....
No. the CAFC is saying that it has an obligation to follow the
precedent in the relevant circuit, so the district court doesn't
have to follow conflicting circuit precedents. In this specific
case, there was already Nintch Circuit law in the area, so the
CAFC decided to follow that.
Had there been no Ninth Circuit precedent, the CAFC would have
followed its own precedents if any. You are taking case law and
trying to apply it in a vacuum.
It would make no sense for the CAFC to issue an advisory opinion.
For one thing, this would violate the constitution. For another,
it would be a waste of judicial resources.