United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CMI USA INC., FKA COOLER MASTER USA, INC.,
COOLER MASTER CO., LTD.,
Defendants-Appellants
______________________
2016-1026, 2016-1183
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:13-cv-00457-JST,
Judge Jon S. Tigar.
______________________
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
______________________
Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and TARANTO,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The petition for panel rehearing is granted in part.
The opinion of the court, Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI
USA INC.,
842 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is modified as
follows:
2 ASETEK DANMARK A/S v. CMI USA INC.
At 842 F.3d at 1353, “Opinion dissenting in part filed
by Chief Judge Prost” is deleted.
At 842 F.3d at 1367, the paragraph that begins “Two
final, related points. …” is replaced by the following:
Two final, related points. First, the need
for further proceedings to determine the
proper reach of the injunction in this case
leads us to vacate the injunction, effective
upon issuance of our mandate, insofar as the
injunction reaches conduct by Cooler Master
that does not abet new violations by CMI.
The district court is to conduct those pro-
ceedings in as reasonably prompt a fashion
as possible. Our partial vacatur of the in-
junction does not foreclose Asetek from pur-
suing reinstatement of the vacated portion of
the injunction should there be unjustifiable
delay by Cooler Master in completing the
proceedings, or from pursuing any other
remedies against Cooler Master, if otherwise
authorized by law.
At 842 F.3d at 1367, the sentence in the
CONCLUSION that begins “Insofar as …” is replaced by
the following:
Insofar as the injunction reaches such con-
duct, we vacate the injunction and remand
for further consideration in accordance with
this opinion.
At 842 F.3d at 1367, “AFFIRMED IN PART,
REMANDED IN PART” is replaced by “AFFIRMED IN
PART, VACATED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART.”
At 842 F.3d at 1367–71, Chief Judge Prost’s partial
dissent is withdrawn.
The revised opinion accompanies this order.
ASETEK DANMARK A/S v. CMI USA INC. 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FOR THE COURT
April 3, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
