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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Acoustic Technologies, Inc. v. Itron, Inc., No. 11-1315 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2011)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 11-1315
Decided
September 6, 2011
Judge
Lourie, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. Gnuited States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, .

ve

ITRON, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2011-1315

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in case no. 10-CV-10500, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton.

ON MOTION

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

ORDER

The parties jointly move to remand this case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Acoustic Technologies, Inc. (ATI appeals the district court's judgment that dismissed its complaint without2 ACOUSTIC TECH v. ITRON 2 prejudice. The district court held that ATI lacked standing to sue alone for patent infringement because it was only a co-owner of the patent. The parties state that they have now settled the case and requested an indicative ruling from the district court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1, whether the district court would defer, deny, or grant a motion to vacate the underlying judgment if the case were remanded. The district court indicated pursuant to Rule 62.1(a)(3) that it would grant the motion.

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

Upon consideration thereof, It Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings as may be appropriate.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

For THE COURT SEP 06 2011 /3/ Jan Horbaly

Date dan Horbaly

Clerk

ce: Robert W. Hayes, Esq.

Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Esq.

88 Iseued As A Mandate: _SEP 06 2011

oS. court +P peas FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SEP 06 2011 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

Acoustic Technologies, Inc. v. Itron, Inc., No. 11-1315 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2011).

Record ID
CAFC-11-1315-20110906
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-11-1315-20110906

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.