No Right Of Cross-Appeal From Favorable Decisions
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.22.06
In Nautilus Group, Inc. v. ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., (No. 05-1577; February 15, 2006), the Federal Circuit dismisses ICON's conditional cross-appeal from the district court's claim construction order. Nautilus appealed an unfavorable district court's final judgment on ICON's counterclaim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. ICON then filed a conditional cross-appeal seeking review of certain claim construction rulings in the event of a reversal of the judgment of non-infringement. In dismissing ICON's cross-appeal, the Federal Circuit reiterates the principle that a “party has no right of cross-appeal from a decision in its favor.” A party who prevails on non-infringement has no right to introduce new arguments or challenge a claim construction, but may instead “assert alternative ground in the record for affirming the judgment.”
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
