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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA Inc., No. 16-1026 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2017)

Affirmed in Part
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1026
Decided
April 3, 2017
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Precedential Opinion
Length
3 pages

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

ASETEK DANMARK A/S,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CMI USA INC., FKA COOLER MASTER USA, INC.,

COOLER MASTER CO., LTD.,

Defendants-Appellants

2016-1026, 2016-1183

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:13-cv-00457-JST, Judge Jon S. Tigar.

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and TARANTO,

Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

The petition for panel rehearing is granted in part. The opinion of the court, Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA INC., 842 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is modified as follows:

2At 842 F.3d at 1353, “Opinion dissenting in part filed by Chief Judge Prost” is deleted.

At 842 F.3d at 1367, the paragraph that begins “Two final, related points. …” is replaced by the following:

Two final, related points. First, the need for further proceedings to determine the proper reach of the injunction in this case leads us to vacate the injunction, effective upon issuance of our mandate, insofar as the injunction reaches conduct by Cooler Master that does not abet new violations by CMI. The district court is to conduct those proceedings in as reasonably prompt a fashion as possible. Our partial vacatur of the injunction does not foreclose Asetek from pursuing reinstatement of the vacated portion of the injunction should there be unjustifiable delay by Cooler Master in completing the proceedings, or from pursuing any other remedies against Cooler Master, if otherwise authorized by law. At 842 F.3d at 1367, the sentence in the CONCLUSION that begins “Insofar as …” is replaced by the following:

Insofar as the injunction reaches such conduct, we vacate the injunction and remand for further consideration in accordance with this opinion. At 842 F.3d at 1367, “AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART” is replaced by “AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART.”

At 842 F.3d at 1367–71, Chief Judge Prost’s partial dissent is withdrawn. The revised opinion accompanies this order.

3IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOR THE COURT

April 3, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

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

Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA Inc., No. 16-1026 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1026-20170403
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1026-20170403

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.