Case Name: ALTERA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG, Defendant-Appellee; Xilinx, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-09
Citations: 691 F. App'x 907
Docket Number: 2015-1914; 2015-1919
Parties: ALTERA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG, Defendant-Appellee. Xilinx, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before Prost, Chief Judge, Lourie and Chen, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 907–909

Head Matter:
ALTERA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG, Defendant-Appellee. Xilinx, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, Defendant-Appellee.
2015-1914
2015-1919
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
ISSUED AS A MANDATE (AS TO 15-1914 ONLY): June 9, 2016
Chad S. Campbell, Esq., Jessica L. Ev-eretl>-Garcia, Esq., Attorneys, Jonathan D. Allred, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Dan L. Bagatell, Perkins Coie LLP, Hanover, NH, for Plaintiff-Appellant Alt-era Corporation.
Patrick Thomas Michael, Attorney, Matthew J. Silveira, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant Xilinx, Inc.
Nicole E. Glauser, Andrew DiNovo, Attorneys, Jay D. Ellwanger, DiNovo, Price, Ellwanger & Hardy LLP, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG.
Charles Duan, Attorney, Public Knowledge, Washington, DC, Vera Ranieri, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, CA, for Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amici Curiae.
Steven Moore, Attorney, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, San Francisco, CA, for AO Kaspersky Lab, Limelight Networks, Inc., QVC, Inc., SAS Institute Inc., Symmetry LLC, Vizio, Inc., Amici Curiae.
Harrison J. Frahn, IV, Matthew Kurt Telford, Esq., Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Debra Lyn Bas-sett, Anya Bernstein, Jeremy W. Bock, Esq., Patrick J. Borchers, Michael J. Bur-stein, Michael A. Carrier, Bernard Chao, Colleen V. Chien, Jorge L. Contreras, Scott Dodson, Joshua A. Douglas, Catherine Ross Dunham, Katherine Florey, Roger Allan Ford, Leah Chan Grinvald, Paul Ryan Gugliuzza, Esq., Timothy R. Hol-brook, William Hubbard, Sapna Kumar, Megan M. La Belle, Mark A. Lemley, David I. Levine, Brian J. Love, Joseph Scott Miller, Patricia W. Moore, Ira Steven Nathenson, Xuan-Thao Nguyen, Philip A. Pucillo, Greg Reilly, Charles W. Rhodes, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Christopher B. Seaman, Gregory Sisk, Howard M. Wasserman, Thirty-Four Law Professors, Amici Curiae.
Before Prost, Chief Judge, Lourie and Chen, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON MOTION
Lourie, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
Altera Corporation moves unopposed to vacate the dismissal order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and to remand appeal no. 2015-1914 with instructions , to dismiss.
Altera appeals from an order dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction its action seeking a declaration of noninfringement of Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's patents. Papst filed its own action against Altera in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the same patents, in which Altera filed counterclaims identical to those asserted in the California action. After this appeal was docketed, the Delaware action was transferred to Northern California and Papst has agreed to be subject to jurisdiction. As a result of the transfer, Altera's appeal is now moot.
Under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to vacate the California court's decision and remand with instructions for that court to dismiss. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); see also Evans v. United States, 694 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) The motion is granted. The July 9, 2015 order in 5:14-cv-04794-LHK is vacated and Altera's appeal is remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The district court is directed to dismiss 5:14-cv-04794-LHK as moot.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs as to 2015-1914.
(3) The revised official caption for 2015-1919 is reflected above.
Xilinx, Inc. had also filed a declaratory judgment action which was dismissed by the California court. Altera states that Xilinx has not asserted the declaratory judgment claims as counterclaims in Delaware and that Xilinx does not contend its separate appeal, 2015-1919, is moot. Thus, we do not address 2015-1919 further in this order.