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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

B-K Lighting v. Fresno Valves, No. 10-1135 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2010)

Granted
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-1135
Decided
July 2, 2010
Judge
Newman, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential Gnited States Court of Appeals

for the Pederal Circuit

B-K LIGHTING, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

ve

FRESNO VALVES & CASTINGS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2010-1135

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. 06-CV-2825, Judge Margaret M. Morrow.

ON MOTION

Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

ORDER

B-K Lighting, Inc. (B-K) moves without opposition to vacate the order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California that granted the motion of Fresno Valves & Castings, Inc. (Fresno Valves) for2 B-K LIGHTING v. FRESNO VALVES 2 attorney fees, and to remand the matter for further proceedings.

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

In the order underlying this appeal, the district court awarded Fresno Valves attorney fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 285 on the basis that it was the prevailing party below. We stayed proceedings in this appeal pending disposition of No. 2008-1537, B-K’s earlier appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment on the merits.

On April 28, 2010, this court issued its decision in the earlier appeal, vacating the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to some of the asserted patent claims and remanding to the district court for further proceedings. So that the district court may have the opportunity to consider the appropriateness of attorney fees in light of these subsequent developments, we vacate the court’s order awarding attorney fees and remand the case for further proceedings as may be appropriate.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

For THE CoURT JUL 02 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

US, court Ue areeas FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

JUL 02 2010

JAN HORBALY

CLERK

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

33 B-K LIGHTING v. FRESNO VALVES

cc: Steven E. Shapiro, Esq.

Duane H. Mathiowetz, Esq.

819

DATE: __ JUL 92 2010

ISSUED ASAMAN

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

B-K Lighting v. Fresno Valves, No. 10-1135 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2010).

Record ID
CAFC-10-1135-20100702
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1135-20100702

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.