<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"<p dir=\"ltr\">WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell&rsquo;s case against an alleged patent troll should be tried in the state.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">The so-called &ldquo;scanner troll,&rdquo; MPHJ Technology Investments LLC, was trying to avoid litigating its case in Vermont state court.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">The company has been accused, in various lawsuits, of sending thousands of letters to businesses, demanding them to pay $1,000 per worker for using a process of scanning and emailing an electronic document.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">Judge Pauline Newman explained in the Federal Circuit&rsquo;s six-page order that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by MPHJ.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">&ldquo;Here the district court remanded on a ground provided in &sect;1447(c); that is, in the district court&rsquo;s view the complaint did not raise a claim or question of federal law to give rise to federal jurisdiction,&rdquo; Newman wrote for the three-judge panel.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">&ldquo;Section 1447(d) precludes this court from second-guessing the district court&rsquo;s jurisdiction determination regarding subject matter.&rdquo;</p><p dir=\"ltr\">In May 2013, Sorrell brought a lawsuit in state court against MPHJ.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">The attorney general alleged that MPHJ sent unfair and deceptive demand letters to businesses and nonprofits throughout Vermont.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">MPHJ removed the case to federal court, which remanded it back to state court in April due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">MPHJ appealed that decision and raised other issues, all of which were dismissed by the Federal Circuit.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">&ldquo;We&rsquo;re pleased the Federal Circuit has rejected MPHJ&rsquo;s appeal. Now we can turn in earnest to litigate the case in state court -- where it began and where it rightfully should be,&rdquo; Sorrell said.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">In a company statement, MPHJ said it believes the panel erred in its decision.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">&ldquo;We will be asking the full court to review the panel&rsquo;s decision,&rdquo; it said.</p><p dir=\"ltr\">MPHJ added, &ldquo;It is important to note that this ruling did not address substantive case issues. Those issues include MPHJ&rsquo;s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments that have already been confirmed by other federal courts.&rdquo;</p><p><em>From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by email at <a href=\"mailto:patents@legalnewsline.com\">patents@legalnewsline.com</a>.</em></p>"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510627519-federal-circuit-sends-case-against-alleged-patent-troll-back-to-vermont>