Court Opinion

ID: 8205989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-13 14:01:43.039415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:12.277222
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1081     Document: 34    Page: 1   Filed: 09/12/2022

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                    WINET LABS LLC,
                     Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                         2022-1081
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:20-cv-01094, Senior
 Judge Harry D. Leinenweber.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: September 12, 2022
                   ______________________

     MATTHEW MICHAEL WAWRZYN, Wawrzyn LLC, Chi-
 cago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

     STEPHEN MAXWELL HANKINS, Riley Safer Holmes &
 Cancila LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-ap-
 pellee. Also represented by LOUIS A. KLAPP, MICHAEL
 HARRINGTON FLECK, Chicago, IL.
                 ______________________

     Before DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1081     Document: 34     Page: 2    Filed: 09/12/2022

 2                  WINET LABS LLC   v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC

 PER CURIAM.
      The district court dismissed this case for lack of stand-
 ing without specifying whether the dismissal was with or
 without prejudice. The parties agree that the dismissal
 must be without prejudice. This court understands the dis-
 trict court’s dismissal of this case to have been without
 prejudice. On this basis, we affirm the district court’s de-
 cision to dismiss this case for lack of standing.
     Appellant also challenges the district court’s decision
 to award attorney fees, a decision that is not final and ap-
 pealable until the award has been quantified. Because the
 award has not been quantified, we lack jurisdiction. Fa-
 lana v. Kent State Univ., 669 F.3d 1349, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir.
 2012). We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal.
     AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART