Dicam, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership (doing Business As Verizon Wireless)

# NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DICAM, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP (DOING BUSINESS AS
VERIZON WIRELESS),
Defendant-Appellee,
and
AT&T MOBILITY LLC
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS CINGULAR WIRELESS,
LLC), SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP, AND NEXTEL
OPERATIONS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES, LLC
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS UTSTARCOM),
Defendant-Appellee,
and
PALM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.

2011-1034

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="DICAM v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP" -->

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia in case no. 08-CV-0053,
Judge James C. Turk.

## ON MOTION

Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit
Judges.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

## ORDER

The parties jointly move to remand this case to the
district court due to settlement.

The parties state that they have settled the case and
move to remand so that the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia can consider a motion
to vacate certain orders relating to claim construction and
summary judgment. We grant the motion to the extent
that we remand for the limited purpose of the district
court's consideration of the parties' motion for vacatur.
Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We retain jurisdiction so that any
of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the
clerk of the court within thirty days of entry of the district
court's decision on remand. The appeals are held in
abeyance pending the resolution of the motion for vacatur
by the district court. The parties should promptly inform
this court of the district court's ruling on the motion
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 12.1(b) and should propose
how they believe the appeals should proceed in light of
the district court's ruling.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="DICAM v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP" -->

The motion to remand is granted to limited extent
explained above. The court retains jurisdiction over the
appeal at this time.

FOR THE COURT

APR 0 4 2011

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Michael T. Cooke, Esq.
David L. Witcoff, Esq.
Brian C. Riopelle, Esq.
Mark V. Campagna, Esq.
David C. Doyle, Esq.
Thomas R. DeSimone, Esq.
s20

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
APR 04 2011

JAN HORBALY
CLERK