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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Karl Storz Imaging, Inc. v. Pointe Conception Medical, Inc., No. 12-1001 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2012)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 12-1001
Decided
July 16, 2012
Judge
Newman, J.
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

KARL STORZ IMAGING, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Vs

POINTE CONCEPTION MEDICAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2012-1001

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. 09-CV-8070, Judge Gary A. Feess. Before NEWMAN, LOURIE and O'MALLEY, 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 Central District of California due to settlement.

The parties state they have settled the case and requested an indicative ruling indicating 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. The2 KARL STORZ v. POINTE CONCEPTION 2 district court indicated pursuant to Rule 62.1(a)(8) that it would grant the motion.

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

Upon consideration thereof, It Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to remand is granted. This court, however, takes no position on the propriety or necessity of vacator, leaving it to the district court to apply the principles enunciated in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994).

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

For THE CouRT JUL 16 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Wesley W. Whitmyer, Jr., Esq.

Marc Karish, Esq.

825 Issued As A Mandate: JUL 16 2012

OS FEDERAL CRU mF

JUL 16 2012

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

Karl Storz Imaging, Inc. v. Pointe Conception Medical, Inc., No. 12-1001 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2012).

Record ID
CAFC-12-1001-20120716
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1001-20120716

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.