Case ID: f-appx_416/html/0899-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRYSON, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DICAM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
    No. 2011-1034.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    April 4, 2011.
    David L. Witcoff, Scott W. Burt, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Brian C. Riopelle, McGuirewoods LLP, Richmond, VA, Mark V. Campagna, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, David C. Doyle, M. Andrew Woodmansee, Gregory W. Reilly, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, San Diego, CA, Thomas R. Desimone, Gibbons P.C., New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Michael T. Cooke, Jonathan T. Suder, Friedman, Suder & Cooke, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
   ON MOTION

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

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. RApp. 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:

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