Opinion ID: 984451
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: compaq’s other arguments

Text: Compaq incorporated by reference all of Seagate’s arguments into its own brief. Compaq, nevertheless, also discusses a series of issues, spanning nearly seventy pages, two of which were not considered, or even mentioned, by the district court in its summary judgment order. Compaq argues that: (1) the district court’s noninfringement finding regarding the ’473 patent should be affirmed because Convolve failed to demonstrate that the 40 CONVOLVE v. COMPAQ COMPUTER relationship between acoustic noise and seeks is “inherently” inversely related; (2) the district court’s judgment that Compaq did not misappropriate Convolve’s trade secrets was correct; and (3) despite the district court not reaching any damages issues, Convolve has waived any objection regarding damages for non-Seagate drives or misappropriation damages accrued after Convolve allegedly disclosed its trade secrets. We agree with Compaq, as explained above, that the district court properly entered judgment on Convolve’s trade secret misappropriation claims. Regarding Compaq’s claims on the ’473 patent and damages, however, we decline the opportunity to rule on the new issues it raises on the current record. While Compaq is correct that we may rely on “any ground supported by the record for affirmance of the judgment,” see Granite Mgmt. Corp. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the record and briefing on these issues are insufficient for us to rule at this time. Compaq’s arguments regarding the ’473 patent and damages are issues the district court did not reach. As such, if these issues continue to be of relevance, the district court, and the parties, should be afforded the first opportunity to develop the record on Compaq’s assertions before we conduct our review. 7