Court Opinion

ID: 9916348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 20:00:58.343253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:10.217318
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13999   Document: 6-1      Date Filed: 01/09/2024   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                  In the
               United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-13999
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES INNOVATIONS, LLC,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
      versus
      COCA-COLA COMPANY,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-01241-TWT
                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13999     Document: 6-1     Date Filed: 01/09/2024     Page: 2 of 2

      2                      Opinion of the Court                23-13999

      Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC (“RCDI”)
      appeals from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in fa-
      vor of Coca-Cola Company and the court’s order denying its mo-
      tion for reconsideration. RCDI’s amended complaint asserted a
      single claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws
      of the United States, and its notice of appeal specified that it was
      appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The
      district court transmitted the notice of appeal to both courts of ap-
      peals. Because the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over
      appeals from a final decision of a district court in any civil action
      arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, we lack juris-
      diction to review the district court’s judgment and its order deny-
      ing reconsideration. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); Gunn v. Minton, 568
      U.S. 251, 257 (2013); Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulations
      Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002).
             No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies
      with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all
      other applicable rules.