Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., Appellants v. K.MIZRA LLC, Appellee
ON MOTION
ORDER
On August 16, 2024, this court issued an opinion vacating and remanding to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to further consider patentability. Appellant Cisco Systems, Inc. and Appellant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. then moved under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Appellants provided that their motions were unopposed and due to settlement. The parties have not requested that we vacate our opinion. On October 9, 2024, this court stayed the issuance of the mandate for this appeal pending the court's consideration of Appellants’ motions. On October 11, 2024, this court invited the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to comment as to what further action it deems is appropriate in this appeal. See 35 U.S.C. § 143. The PTO requested we deny Appellants’ motions because this court has already entered its opinion and judgment and denied rehearing. We agree with the PTO.
This court has previously recognized that even in the absence of a request to vacate an opinion, granting a motion to dismiss “at this stage, days before issuance of a mandate, ․ which would result in a modification or vacatur of our [ ] judgment, is neither required nor a proper use of the judicial system.” TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., 429 F. App'x 975, 976 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) (citations omitted) (non-precedential order). We see no reason to depart from that principle here, especially given Appellants filed their motions days before issuance of a mandate. Moreover, appeals from the Board warrant additional consideration of the Director's unconditional right to intervene. 35 U.S.C. § 143. This is yet another reason that generally counsels against granting a motion to dismiss an appeal from the Board after this court has already decided the appeal.
The parties are of course free upon our remand to the Board to seek dismissal.
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered That:
Appellants’ motions to dismiss are denied. The mandate will issue in due course.
Reyna, Circuit Judge.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2022-2290, 2023-1183
Decided: November 19, 2024
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)