Unique Product Solutions, Limited v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc.

# NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

UNIQUE PRODUCT SOLUTIONS, LIMITED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
AND
UNITED STATES,
Intervenor-Appellant,
v.
HY-GRADE VALVE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.

2011-1254, -1284

Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio in case no. 10-CV-1912, Judge
Dan Aaron Polster.

ON MOTION

Before NEWMAN, LINN, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
LINN, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Hy-Grade Valve, Inc. (HGV) moves without opposition
to dismiss this appeal. The United States responds and

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="UNIQUE PRODUCT v. HY-GRADE VALVE" -->

requests that this court also vacate the decision of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio.

On September 16, 2011, the President signed into law
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, H.R. 1249, 112th
Cong. (1st Sess.2011), amending 35 U.S.C. § 292 to elimi-
nate the qui tam provision on which this action was
predicated. This act included the following text regarding
the effective date of this provision: "The amendments
made by this subsection shall apply to all cases, without
exception, that are pending on, or commenced on or after,
the date of the enactment of this Act." Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act, Pub.L. No. 112-29 § 16(b)(4), 125
Stat. 284, 329 (2011) ("the Act").

In light of the amendments to 35 U.S.C. § 292, this
case is moot. Because the circumstance that rendered this
case moot was the amendment of § 292(b) by Congress, it
is appropriate to vacate the district court's determination.
28 U.S.C. § 2106; see Alvarez v. Smith, 130 S.Ct. 576, 581
(2009) ("Applying this statute, we normally do vacate the
lower court judgment in a moot case because doing so
'clears the path for future relitigation of the issues be-
tween the parties,' preserving 'the rights of all parties,'
while prejudicing none 'by a decision which ... was only
preliminary.' "(citing United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,
340 U.S. 36, 40 (1950))); Tafas v. Kappos, 586 F.3d 1369,
1371 (Fed.Cir.2009) ("Vacatur ... is appropriate if the
mootness arises from external causes over which the
parties have no control" (citing U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v.
Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18, 25 (1994))).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="UNIQUE PRODUCT v. HY-GRADE VALVE" -->

(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the dis-
trict court's judgment is vacated and the case is remanded
with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

JAN 18 2012

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk

cc: Gregory R. Jones, Esq.
Mark J. Skakun, III, Esq.
Douglas N. Letter, Esq.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
JAN 1 8 2012

Issued As A Mandate:

$20
JAN 18 2012
\-

JAN HORBALY
CLERK