629 F.3d 1374
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- The Ohio Willow Wood Company, Thermo-Ply, Inc., and Coastal Liners, LLC are involved in appeals related to a patent dispute and district-court proceedings.
- The appeals were jointly moved for remand to the district court for consideration of a motion for vacatur related to a settlement and related judgments.
- Alps South, LLC sought to file amicus brief or intervene to oppose remand, or in the alternative oppose the remand motion.
- The court granted remand for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to decide the motion for vacatur, while retaining appellate jurisdiction for future review.
- The district court’s prior June 14, 2010 dismissal order was vacated, the mandate recalled, and the appeal reinstated for the limited remand; Alps South’s motions were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to remand for district court to consider vacatur | Willow Wood supports remand to district court to decide vacatur. | Thermo-Ply supports remand for the same limited purpose. | Remand granted for limited purpose; district court to decide vacatur. |
| Whether to recall the mandate and reinstate the appeal for limited remand | Remand with district-court consideration preserves appellate review options. | Remand and reinstatement facilitate orderly resolution of vacatur. | Mandate recalled; appeal reinstated for limited remand. |
| Whether Alps South's amicus/intervene motions should be granted | Amicus/Intervene should oppose remand. | Amicus/Intervene should be denied. | Alps South's motions denied. |
| Whether June 14, 2010 dismissal should be vacated | Vacatur may be warranted to allow review in light of settlement. | Vacatur not appropriate absent exceptional circumstances. | Remand to consider vacatur; district court to decide. |
| What governs the propriety of vacatur in patent cases after settlement | Public-interest and finality considerations support vacatur in some circumstances. | Vacatur is extraordinary and should be limited to exceptional circumstances. | Remand allowed; vacatur analysis to be conducted by district court, with caution on public-interest considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (mootness by settlement does not justify vacatur; vacatur is extraordinary and requires entitlement)
- Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83 (1993) (strong public interest in finality of judgments in patent litigation; public rights are vital)