Rates Technology, Inc. v. Speakeasy, Inc. and Best Buy Co., Inc.

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

RATES TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
SPEAKEASY, INC. AND BEST BUY CO., INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
MEGAPATH, INC., COVAD COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY, COVAD COMMUNICATIONS GROUP,
INC., CCGI HOLDING CORPORATION, PLATINUM
EQUITY LLC, AND SPEAKEASY BROADBAND
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.

2011-1436

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in case no. 10-CV-6482,
Judge Denise Cote.

ON MOTION

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="RATES TECH V. SPEAKEASY" -->

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

## ORDER

Speakeasy, Inc. and Best Buy Co., Inc. (Speakeasy)
move to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, or in
the alternative, to transfer to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. Rates Technology Inc.
(RTI) opposes. Speakeasy replies.

RTI filed a complaint at the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of
contract. The district court granted Speakeasy's motion
to dismiss on the grounds that the licensee estoppel
provision in the contract was invalid and unenforceable.

This court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295. Based upon our review, we determine that the
district court's jurisdiction did not arise in whole or in
part under the laws governing this court's appellate
jurisdiction. The contract dispute does not require the
resolution of a related question of patent law, such as
inventorship, infringement, validity, or unenforceability.
See Lab. Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Labs.,
Inc., 599 F.3d 1277, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Speakeasy asks that, as an alternative to dismissal,
the case be transferred to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1631. The court agrees that transfer is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal is
transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="RATES TECH V. SPEAKEASY" -->

SEP 0 8 2011

Date

cc: David L. Leichtman, Esq.
David S. Elkins, Esq.
Chad E. Ziegler, Esq.
s24

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
SEP 0 8 2011

JAN HORBALY
CLERK