All Courts |
Federal Courts |
US Court of Appeals Cases |
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
2011-01 |
-
NOTE: This order is r10nprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the FederaI Circuit FAST MEMORY ERASE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. INTEL CORPORATION, NUMONYX B.V., NUMONYX, INC., SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB, SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA), INC., AND APPLE INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND MOTOROLA, INC., Defenclant-AppelZee. 2010-1302 Appea1 from the United Stat;es District C0urt for the N0rthern District of 'I‘exas in case n0. 10-CV-0481, Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn. FAST MEMORY ERASE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. FAST MEMORY V. INTEL CORP 2 INTEL CORPORATION, NUMONYX B.V., NUMONYX, INC., SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB, SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA), INC., AND APPLE INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND MOTOROLA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2010-1324 Appea1 from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in case no. 10-CV-0481, Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn. ON MOTION Before LoUR1E, FRIEDMAN, and MAYER, Circuit Judges. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 0 R D E R Fast Me1nory Erase, LLC moves to dismiss lntel Cor- poration et al.'s (Intel) conditional cross-appeal, 2010- 1324. Intel opposes Fast Memory replies. FaSt Me1nory brought this suit in the United States DiStrict C0urt for the Northern District of Texas, alleging inter alia, that Intel infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,303,959. Fo1lowing briefing and a hearing the district court issued an order construing six terms from claim 1 of the 959 patent, including construing the term “source leakage” to 3 FAST MEMORY V. INTEL CORP mean "leakage from the source terminal to the substrate terminal that occurs during source erase." Conceding that lntel’s accused products did not in- fringe under the court’s construction of "source leakage,” Fast Memory joined Intel in stipulating to entry of a judgment of non-infringement to allow Fast Memory to appeal. On March 18, 2010, the court entered judgment based on the parties’ stipulation of non-infringement. Fast Memory appealed. Intel also filed a cross-appeal seeking review of the district court’s claim construction of terms other than “source leakage" if the judgment is vacated and further proceedings are ordered. Fast Memory moves to dismiss Intel’s cross-appeal as imp1‘oper. “It is only necessary and appropriate to file a cross-appeal when a party seeks to enlarge its own rights under the judgment or to lessen the rights of its adversary under the judgment." Bailey 1). Dart Container Corp. of Michigan,
292 F.3d 136O, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Am. Ry. Express Co.,
265 U.S. 425, 435 (1924)). Here, Intel concedes that its cross-appeal does not in- volve claim construction rulings implicated by the judg- ment under review, but is rather an attempt to have this court rule on claim terms not implicated by the judgment to govern further proceedings below in the event such proceedings are required. Such cross-appeals are im- proper under Bailey. Intel cites Altiris, Inc. u. Sym,antec Corp.,
318 F.3d 1363(Fed. Cir. 2003), IMS Tech, Inc. v. Haa5 Automation, Inc.,
206 F.3d 1422(Fed. Cir. 2000), and Budde v. Harley-Do,vidson, In,c.,
250 F.3d 1369(Fed. Cir. 2001) in support of its cross-appeal. However, those decisions did not hold that this court had jurisdiction over the asserted cross-appeals and thus they do not support asserting jurisdiction in this case over the cross-appeal FAST MEMORY V. INTEL CORP 4 Because Inte1’s cross-appeal is improper, we grant the motion and dismiss Intel may, if appropriate, raise the issues in its appellee's brief. Accordingly, lT lS ORDERED THATZ (1) The motion to dismiss the cross-appeal is granted The revised official caption is reflected above. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs with regard to the cross-appeal. FOR THE COURT JAN 05 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk cc: Jeff``rey R. Bragalone, Esq. Chris R. Ottenweller, Esq. Russell E. Levine, Esq. s19 _ Issued As A Mandate (For 2010-1324 Only): 0 5 2lTll FlLED u.s. comer 0 mEsnEtFé3%'r§T*°" JAN 05 2011 .IAN HDRBAL¥ CLERK
Document Info
Docket Number: 2010-1302, 2010-1324
Citation Numbers: 413 F. App'x 226
Judges: Lourie, Friedman, Mayer
Filed Date: 1/5/2011
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024