Court Opinion

ID: 9965702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 14:01:01.837087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:34.307343
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-118   Document: 11      Page: 1   Filed: 05/03/2024

          NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                       ON24, INC.,
                    Plaintiff-Petitioner

                            v.

                 WEBINAR.NET, INC.,
                  Defendant-Respondent
                 ______________________

                        2024-118
                 ______________________

   On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b) from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:21-
CV-07721-EMC, Judge Edward M. Chen.
                ______________________

                     ON PETITION
                 ______________________

     Before CHEN, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
LINN, Circuit Judge.
                        ORDER
    ON24, Inc. petitions for permission to appeal an inter-
locutory order of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granting partial summary
Case: 24-118    Document: 11      Page: 2    Filed: 05/03/2024

2                             ON24, INC. v. WEBINAR.NET, INC.

judgment, which the district court certified pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b).
     Under § 1292(b), a district court may certify that an or-
der that is not otherwise appealable is one involving a con-
trolling question of law as to which there is substantial
ground for difference of opinion and for which an immedi-
ate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termina-
tion of the litigation. Ultimately, this court must exercise
its own discretion in deciding whether to grant permission
to appeal an interlocutory order. See In re Convertible
Rowing Exerciser Pat. Litig., 903 F.2d 822, 822 (Fed. Cir.
1990). In this case, we conclude that an interlocutory ap-
peal under § 1292(b) is not appropriate.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition for permission to appeal is denied.
                                              FOR THE COURT

 May 3, 2024
    Date