Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. Hoc Events, Inc., Dba Supertool USA

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
HOC EVENTS, INC., DBA SUPERTOOL USA,
Defendant
______________________
2021-1963
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:19-cv-02736-JLS-
DFM, Judge Josephine L. Staton.
--------------------------------------------
EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JUGGERNAUT TACTICAL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-1987
______________________

-- 1 of 3 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 8:18-cv-01378-JLS-
DFM, Judge Josephine L. Staton.
______________________
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND
REHEARING EN BANC
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, N EWMAN, L OURIE, D YK,
P ROST , REYNA, T ARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES , S TOLL , and
CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.1
P ER CURIAM .
CORRECTED ORDER
Juggernaut Tactical, Inc. filed a combined petition for
panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The petition was
referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter
the petition for rehearing en banc was referred to the cir-
cuit judges who are in regular active service.
Upon consideration thereof,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition for panel rehearing is denied.
The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
The panel makes one change in its opinion, which is
unrelated to the rehearing petition. Footnote 1 is replaced
with the following:
On October 26, 2021, the district court issued an
order granting attorney’s fees to Juggernaut as a
1 Circuit Judge O’Malley retired on March 11, 2022.
Circuit Judge Stark did not participate.

-- 2 of 3 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 3
“prevailing party” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and di-
recting Juggernaut to submit a proposed amend-
ment to the earlier judgment to incorporate the fees
award—thus making clear that the October 26th
order was not going to “be the court’s final act in
the matter.” S.L. ex rel. Loof v. Upland Unified
School Dist., 747 F.3d 1155, 1161–62 (9th Cir.
2014) (cleaned up). On November 24, 2021, after
Juggernaut made the submission, the court issued
an amended final judgment incorporating the
award of attorney’s fees. On December 1, 2021,
within 30 days of the November 24th judgment,
Evolusion timely filed an amended notice of appeal
to include, in Appeal No. 21-1987, the district
court’s final judgment granting attorney’s fees to
Juggernaut. Juggernaut has not objected to inclu-
sion of that judgment in Appeal No. 21-1987.
This change does not alter the court’s judgment, and no
new judgment will be issued.
The mandate of the court will issue on March 25, 2022.
March 18, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

-- 3 of 3 --