Case ID: f-appx_109/html/0431-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROST, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MICROTUNE (TEXAS), L.P., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BROADCOM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-1338.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Aug. 9, 2004.
    J. Michael Jakes, Principal Attorney, Edward J. Naidich, of Counsel, Finnegan, Henderson, Washington, DC, M. Craig Tyler, of Counsel, Wilson Sonsini, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    John Allcoek, Principal Attorney, Gray, Cary, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before GAJARSA, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

PROST, Circuit Judge.

The parties move jointly to dismiss 04-1338 and for a remand “so that the parties may request partial vacatur of the District Court’s judgment.”

The court notes that it cannot both dismiss and remand and that the parties appear to be seeking a remand. To the extent that the parties seek vacatur of the district court’s judgment, the parties should request that relief from the district court. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is denied.

(2) The motion to remand is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.