NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1052 BAYCHAR, INC. and BAY CHAR HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. SALOMON NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. John W. Kepler, III , Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, LC , of St. Louis, Missouri, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With hi m on the brief were Cathy J. Futrowsky and Daniel T. Simpson, Jr. Donald A. Degnan , Holland & Hart LLP, of B oulder, Colorado, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on t he brief was James E. Hartley , of Denver, Colorado. Appealed from: United States Distric t Court for the District of Maine Judge D. Brock HornbyNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1052 BAYCHAR, INC. and BAYCHAR HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. SALOMON NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine in case no. 04-CV136, Judge D. Brock Hornby.

___________________________ DECIDED: June 18, 2008

___________________________ Before MAYER, Circuit Judge , PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge , and DYK, Circuit Judge

. PER CURIAM. In this infringement action, the distri ct court entered a judgm ent of non-liability, holding, inter alia, that liability for patent infringement was precluded on the ground of implied license / patent exhaustion. Defendant-appellee Salomon No rth America, Inc. (“Sal omon”) argues that the judgment of non-liability should be affirm ed on the ground of implied license. The implied license holding was set forth in the Nov. 6, 2006, Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge. Although parts of the Nov. 6, 2006, judgment were vacated, the decision upon which that judgment rested was not vacated. Counsel for plaintiffs-appellants Baychar, Inc. and Baychar Holdings, LLC, (“Baychar”)2008-1052 2 conceded in oral argument that the Nov. 6, 2006, decision was incorporated into the final amended judgment of Sept. 10, 2007, and acknowledged that the final judgment “rests both on Judge Hornby’s decision and on the [Nov. 6, 2006] decision.” Oral Arg. at 7:30-7:43. On appeal, counsel raised no objection to the merits of the district court’s finding of implied license. Any objection to this decision was therefore waived. Accordingly, the district c ourt’s judgment of non-liability is affirmed. We need not reach the other grounds asserted for affirmance of the judgment of non-liability. The district court also held that clai m 8 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,048,810 (“the ‘810 patent”) was invalid, and entered a judgment of invalidity on Salomon’s counterclaim. Counsel for Salomon advised us that we need not reach the issue of invalidity here, and agreed that the judgm ent of invalidity here could appropriately be vacated. See Oral Arg. at 13:51-14:12 (“[I]f this court affirms t he Salomon decision . . . [on implied license or other grounds], Salomon would agree to have the collateral estoppel decision on invalidity by anticipation vacat ed . . . .”). The issue of in validity of claim 8 of the ‘810 patent is before this c ourt in a companion case, Baychar v. Burton Corp. , No. 2008- 1053 (Fed. Cir. filed Oct. 1, 2007), and will be reso lved in that case. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment of invalidity here. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART. COSTS
No costs.