LSI Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 111510 FEDFED, 2010-1352
|Opinion Judge:||SCHALL, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||LSI CORPORATION AND AGERE SYSTEMS INC., Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR, LTD. AND JAZZ SEMICONDUCTOR, Intervenors, AND NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, POWERCHIP TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, AND SPANSION, INC., Intervenors, AND INTEGRATED DEVICE TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND GRACE SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CORPORAT|
|Judge Panel:||Before Gajarsa, Schall, and MoORE, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||November 15, 2010|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|
This order is nonprecedential.
On appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-648.
The International Trade Commission moves to dismiss this appeal as moot. LSI Corporation et al. (LSI) respond and request that the court vacate the Commission's final determination. Nanya Technology Corporation et al. and Integrated Device Technology, Inc. et al. (Nanya) reply.
The Commission found no violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 based on its finding that the asserted claims of United States Patent No. 5, 227, 335 (the '335 patent) were invalid. The Commission states that the '335 patent expired on July 13, 2010 and thus the appeal is moot.
LSI agrees that the appeal is moot and does not oppose dismissal of the appeal. However, LSI requests that the court vacate the Commission's final determination as it did in similar circumstances in Texas Instruments, Inc. V. U.S. Ml Trade Comm'n, 851 F.2d 342, 344 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Nanya asserts that vacatur is not warranted because Commission determinations do not generally have preclusive effects and that in this case LSI simply wishes to set aside an adverse decision. Nanya asserts that LSI waited two months to file its appeal and thus the case became moot due to LSFs actions, not happenstance.
The court agrees that this case is moot. Further, the court determines that the case became moot by happenstance. LSI timely filed its appeal. Moreover, even if LSI had filed its appeal immediately after the Commission issued its final determination...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP