Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Interactive Health v. King Kong USA, No. 09-1141 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2010)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 09-1141
Decided
July 2, 2010
Judge
Newman, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

Nore: This order is nonprecedential. Gnited States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

INTERACTIVE HEALTH, LLC (NOW KNOWN AS HUMAN TOUCH, LLC) and DAITO DENKI KOGYU

K.K. (DOING BUSINESS AS DAITO ELECTRIC

MACHINE INDUSTRY COMPANY, LTD.),

Plaintiffs-Appellanits,

v.

KING KONG USA, INC., AMERICAN LIGHTING

INDUSTRY, INC., and BERNARD KOAY,

Defendants-Cross Appellants,

and

WFO IMPORTS LLC,

Defendant-Cross Appellant,

and

BLAIR HAYES,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

HEALTHFIRST LLC,

Defendant.

2009-1141, -1155, -1401

2INTERACTIVE HEALTH v. KING KONG USA 2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. 06-CV-1902, Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank.

ON MOTION

Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and Prost, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion
Figure on page 2 of the opinion

ORDER

The parties move jointly to dismiss and to remand to the United States District Court for the Central District of California due to settlement.

The parties state that the settlement agreement contemplates the vacatur of certain district court orders and amendment of the judgment and that they “are presently filing a joint motion with the District Court for such vacatur and amendment.” The parties request that the court remand the case to the district court with instructions to consider their motion.

The court cannot both dismiss and remand the appeal. Because the parties indicate that they seek further proceedings in the district court, the court remands to allow such proceedings as the district court deems proper.

Accordingly, It Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss is denied. (2) The motion to remand is granted. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Figure on page 3 of the opinion

33 INTERACTIVE HEALTH v. KING KONG USA

For THE Court JUL 02 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

ce: Leslie F. Vandale, Esq.

Peter J. Korneffel, Jr., Esq. David A. Dillard, Esq.

817 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: WL 02 2010

FILED

U.S, COURT OF AP

THE FEDERAL CIR

CE

JUL 02 2010

JAN HORBALY

CLERK

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Interactive Health v. King Kong USA, No. 09-1141 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2010).

Record ID
CAFC-09-1141-20100702
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-09-1141-20100702

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.