Seasons 4 Inc. v. Special Happy, Ltd.

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SEASONS 4 INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SPECIAL HAPPY, LTD.,
Defendant-Appellant
______________________
2024-2013
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:23-cv-09649-AB-
MAA, Judge Andre Birotte, Jr.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before LOURIE, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Special Happy, Ltd. moves for a stay pursuant to Rule
8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Seasons 4
Inc. opposes and moves to dismiss the appeal. Special
Happy opposes the motion to dismiss.
Case: 24-2013 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 08/30/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

SEASONS 4 INC. v. SPECIAL HAPPY , LTD . 2
Seasons 4 filed a complaint at the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Central District of California alleging
patent infringement by Special Happy, a Chinese company.
On April 17, 2024, the district court granted Seasons 4’s
motion for leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(f)(3) to serve process via email. Special Happy filed a no-
tice of appeal from that order and moved this court to stay
the district court proceedings pending appeal. Seasons 4
thereafter filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed-
eral Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i)1 at the district
court and moved to dismiss Special Happy’s appeal.
“On appeal . . . a case becomes moot ‘when the issues
presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome.’” ABS Glob., Inc. v. Cy-
tonome/ST, LLC, 984 F.3d 1017, 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
(quoting Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013)).
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)
is generally “self-executing,” Garber v. Chi. Mercantile
Exch., 570 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009), generally has
the effect of placing the parties in the same place as had
the suit never been filed, see Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d
923, 938 (9th Cir. 2001), and can moot a pending appeal,
see, e.g., Carnahan v. Maloney, 143 S. Ct. 2653 (2023); Tur
v. YouTube, Inc., 562 F.3d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 2009).
Resisting dismissal, Special Happy notes that after the
filing of the notice of voluntary dismissal, Seasons 4 re-
moved a state court action brought by Special Happy to fed-
eral court without complying with the Hague Service
Convention. Those subsequent proceedings, Special Happy
argues, demonstrate that Seasons 4’s failure to comply
with the treaty is likely to reoccur, and it contends that
1 Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that a “plaintiff may
dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a no-
tice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an
answer or a motion for summary judgment.”
Case: 24-2013 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 08/30/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

SEASONS 4 INC. v. SPECIAL HAPPY , LTD . 3
Seasons 4’s voluntary actions here should not deprive it of
the ability to challenge the district court’s order.
We do not find Special Happy’s argument persuasive.
As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has noted,
“an issue is moot[,] even if resolving it would prevent an
identical or similar case from being re-filed in the same ju-
risdiction[,]” when “deciding it would have no effect within
the confines of the case itself.” Tur, 562 F.3d at 1214.
Here, in light of the notice of dismissal, we are unable to
grant Special Happy any effective relief in this case.2
The Supreme Court, relying on United States v. Mun-
singwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950), has explained that
its “ordinary practice in disposing of a case that has become
moot on appeal is to vacate the judgment with directions to
dismiss.” N. Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of New
York, 590 U.S. 336, 337 (2020) (quoting Lewis v. Cont’l
Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 482 (1990)). Here, we deem it
appropriate to vacate the order, given mootness is not at-
tributable to Special Happy’s actions.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to dismiss is granted to the extent that
this appeal is dismissed as moot, and the district court’s
April 17, 2024 order is vacated.
2 Although the Supreme Court has recognized that
“a defendant cannot automatically moot a case simply by
ending its unlawful conduct once sued,” because “a defend-
ant could [otherwise] engage in unlawful conduct, stop
when sued to have the case declared moot, then pick up
where [it] left off, repeating this cycle until [it] achieves all
[its] unlawful ends,” Already, 568 U.S. at 91 (cleaned up),
such situation is clearly not presented in this case.
Case: 24-2013 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 08/30/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

SEASONS 4 INC. v. SPECIAL HAPPY , LTD . 4
(2) All other motions are denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
August 30, 2024
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 24-2013 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 08/30/2024

-- 4 of 4 --