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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Dicam, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership, No. 11-1034 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2011)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 11-1034
Decided
April 4, 2011
Judge
Bryson, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NoTE: This order is nonprecedential. Guited States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

DICAM, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Vv.

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP (DOING BUSINESS AS

VERIZON WIRELESS),

Defendant-Appellee,

and

AT&T MOBILITY LLC

(FORMERLY KNOWN AS CINGULAR WIRELESS,

LLC), SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP, AnD NEXTEL

OPERATIONS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES, LLC

(FORMERLY KNOWN AS UTSTARCOM),

Defendant-Appellee,

and

PALM, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2011-1034

2DICAM v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP 2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia in case no. 08-CV-0053, Judge James C. Turk.

ON MOTION

Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit

Judges.

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

ORDER

The parties jointly move to remand this case to the district court due to settlement.

The parties state that they have settled the case and move to remand so that the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia can consider a motion to vacate certain orders relating to claim construction and summary judgment. We grant the motion to the extent that we remand for the limited purpose of the district court's consideration of the parties' motion for vacatur. Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We retain jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty days of entry of the district court's decision on remand. The appeals are held in abeyance pending the resolution of the motion for vacatur by the district court. The parties should promptly inform this court of the district court's ruling on the motion pursuant to Fed, R. App. P. 12.1(b) and should propose how they believe the appeals should proceed in light of the district court's ruling.

Upon consideration thereof, It Is ORDERED THAT:

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

33 DICAM v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP

The motion to remand is granted to limited extent explained above. The court retains jurisdiction over the appeal at this time.

For THE Court

APR 04 201

/s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

ce: Michael T. Cooke, Esq.

David L. Witcoff, Esq. Brian C. Riopelle, Esq. Mark V. Campagna, Esq.

FILED

David C. Doyle, Esq. §.S, C

i OURT OF APPEALS FO E FEDERAL CRUTT Thomas R. DeSimone, Esq.

APR 04 2011 s20

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

Dicam, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership, No. 11-1034 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2011).

Record ID
CAFC-11-1034-20110404
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-11-1034-20110404

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.