David Tropp v. Conair Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: July 18, 2013
• Docket: 12-1337
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 12-1337 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2013

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DAVID A. TROPP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONAIR CORPORATION, L.C. INDUSTRIES, LLC, MASTER LOCK COMPANY LLC, SAMSONITE CORPORATION, TRAVELPRO INTERNATIONAL INC., AND TRG ACCESSORIES, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, AND

BRIGGS & RILEY TRAVELWARE LLC, Defendant-Appellant, AND

EAGLE CREEK, A DIVISION OF VF OUTDOOR, INC., BROOKSTONE COMPANY, INC., AND BROOKSTONE STORES, INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND

DELSEY LUGGAGE INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND

EBAGS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND Case: 12-1337 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2013

MAGELLAN’S INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, AND

TUMI, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND

WORDLOCK, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND

OUTPAC DESIGNS INC., HP MARKETING CORP. LTD., AND TITAN LUGGAGE USA, Defendants. ______________________

2012-1337 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in No. 08-CV-4446, Judge Eric N. Vitaliano. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

Before DYK, PROST and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. PROST, Circuit Judge. ORDER The parties jointly submit a letter, which this court construes as a motion to vacate the district court’s denial of the appellants’ motion for attorneys’ fees. Case: 12-1337 Document: 48 Page: 3 Filed: 07/18/2013

DAVID TROPP v. CONAIR CORPORATION 3 This appeal of a denial of attorneys’ fees, along with the underlying merits appeal, David Tropp v. Conair Corp., No. 2011-1583, (“Merits Appeal”), was stayed pending this court’s decision in Travel Sentry, Inc. v. David Tropp, Nos. 2011-1023, -1367. Shortly after this court’s decision in Travel Sentry, the court decided the Merits Appeal, vacating and remanding the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, vacatur of the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees is also warranted. See Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Systems Corp., 688 F.3d 1311, 1313 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to vacate is granted. (2) All parties shall bear their own costs. FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk s25