Case Name: THE HOLMES GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-03
Citations: 101 F. App'x 815
Docket Number: No. 00-1286
Parties: THE HOLMES GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant,
Judges: Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 815–816

Head Matter:
THE HOLMES GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant,
No. 00-1286.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 3, 2004.
James W. Dabney, Principal Attorney, Fried, Frank, Carol M. Wilhelm, of Counsel, Pennie & Edmonds, New York, NY, Marcia H. Sundeen, Carol M. Wilhelm, of Counsel, Pennie & Edmonds, Washington, DC, Jim H. Goering, Timothy B. Mustaine, of Counsel, Foulston & Siefkin, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter W. Gowdey, Principal Attorney, Shook, Hardy, Lynn E. Eccleston, of Counsel, Eccleston Law, Michael A. Conley, of Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop, Lisa Ann Dunner, Samuel Paul Burkholder, of Counsel, Pillsbury Madison, Washington, DC, Edward Linus Brown, Jr., of Counsel, Wichita, KS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
The court has received a certified copy of the judgment from the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States in Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vomado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 122 S.Ct. 1889, 153 L.Ed.2d 13 (2002). The Supreme Court vacated this court's judgment in Holmes Group, Inc. (No. 00-1286) issued on June 5, 2001, and remanded.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The mandate issued on June 26, 2001, is hereby recalled and the appeal is reinstated.
(2) The case shall be returned to the original merits panel.
(3) It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the parties, that this appeal is voluntarily dismissed in its entirety, pursuant to Fed.R.App.P.42. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees, if any.
. The movants request a dismissal with prejudice. It is not this court's usual practice, when granting joint motions to dismiss, to state whether the motion is granted with or without prejudice.