Fast Memory Erase, LLC v. Intel Corp. , 413 F. App'x 226 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • NOTE: This order is r10nprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the FederaI Circuit
    FAST MEMORY ERASE, LLC,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    V.
    INTEL CORPORATION, NUMONYX B.V.,
    NUMONYX, INC., SONY ERICSSON MOBILE
    COMMUNICATIONS AB, SONY ERICSSON
    MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA), INC.,
    AND APPLE INC.,
    Defendants-Appellees,
    AND
    MOTOROLA, INC.,
    Defenclant-AppelZee.
    2010-1302
    Appea1 from the United Stat;es District C0urt for the
    N0rthern District of 'I‘exas in case n0. 10-CV-0481, Judge
    Barbara M.G. Lynn.
    FAST MEMORY ERASE, LLC,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    V.
    FAST MEMORY V. INTEL CORP 2
    INTEL CORPORATION, NUMONYX B.V.,
    NUMONYX, INC., SONY ERICSSON MOBILE
    COMMUNICATIONS AB, SONY ERICSSON
    MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA), INC.,
    AND APPLE INC.,
    Defendants-Appellants,
    AND
    MOTOROLA, INC.,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    2010-1324
    Appea1 from the United States District Court for the
    Northern District of Texas in case no. 10-CV-0481, Judge
    Barbara M.G. Lynn.
    ON MOTION
    Before LoUR1E, FRIEDMAN, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.
    LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
    0 R D E R
    Fast Me1nory Erase, LLC moves to dismiss lntel Cor-
    poration et al.'s (Intel) conditional cross-appeal, 2010-
    1324. Intel opposes Fast Memory replies.
    FaSt Me1nory brought this suit in the United States
    DiStrict C0urt for the Northern District of Texas, alleging
    inter alia, that Intel infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,303,959.
    Fo1lowing briefing and a hearing the district court issued
    an order construing six terms from claim 1 of the 959
    patent, including construing the term “source leakage” to
    3 FAST MEMORY V. INTEL CORP
    mean "leakage from the source terminal to the substrate
    terminal that occurs during source erase."
    Conceding that lntel’s accused products did not in-
    fringe under the court’s construction of "source leakage,”
    Fast Memory joined Intel in stipulating to entry of a
    judgment of non-infringement to allow Fast Memory to
    appeal. On March 18, 2010, the court entered judgment
    based on the parties’ stipulation of non-infringement.
    Fast Memory appealed. Intel also filed a cross-appeal
    seeking review of the district court’s claim construction of
    terms other than “source leakage" if the judgment is
    vacated and further proceedings are ordered.
    Fast Memory moves to dismiss Intel’s cross-appeal as
    imp1‘oper. “It is only necessary and appropriate to file a
    cross-appeal when a party seeks to enlarge its own rights
    under the judgment or to lessen the rights of its adversary
    under the judgment." Bailey 1). Dart Container Corp. of
    Michigan, 
    292 F.3d 136O
    , 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing
    United States v. Am. Ry. Express Co., 
    265 U.S. 425
    , 435
    (1924)).
    Here, Intel concedes that its cross-appeal does not in-
    volve claim construction rulings implicated by the judg-
    ment under review, but is rather an attempt to have this
    court rule on claim terms not implicated by the judgment
    to govern further proceedings below in the event such
    proceedings are required. Such cross-appeals are im-
    proper under Bailey. Intel cites Altiris, Inc. u. Sym,antec
    Corp., 
    318 F.3d 1363
    (Fed. Cir. 2003), IMS Tech, Inc. v.
    Haa5 Automation, Inc., 
    206 F.3d 1422
    (Fed. Cir. 2000),
    and Budde v. Harley-Do,vidson, In,c., 
    250 F.3d 1369
    (Fed.
    Cir. 2001) in support of its cross-appeal. However, those
    decisions did not hold that this court had jurisdiction over
    the asserted cross-appeals and thus they do not support
    asserting jurisdiction in this case over the cross-appeal
    FAST MEMORY V. INTEL CORP 4
    Because Inte1’s cross-appeal is improper, we grant the
    motion and dismiss Intel may, if appropriate, raise the
    issues in its appellee's brief.
    Accordingly,
    lT lS ORDERED THATZ
    (1) The motion to dismiss the cross-appeal is granted
    The revised official caption is reflected above.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs with regard to
    the cross-appeal.
    FOR THE COURT
    JAN 05 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly
    Date J an Horbaly
    Clerk
    cc: Jeff`rey R. Bragalone, Esq.
    Chris R. Ottenweller, Esq.
    Russell E. Levine, Esq.
    s19 _
    Issued As A Mandate (For 2010-1324 Only):  0 5 2lTll
    FlLED
    u.s. comer 0
    mEsnEtFé3%'r§T*°"
    JAN 05 2011
    .IAN HDRBAL¥
    CLERK