Case Name: MICROTUNE (TEXAS), L.P., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BROADCOM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-09
Citations: 109 F. App'x 431
Docket Number: No. 04-1338
Parties: MICROTUNE (TEXAS), L.P., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BROADCOM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GAJARSA, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 431–432

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.