Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc.
This text of Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc. (Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 24-1560 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 10/15/2025
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
INLAND DIAMOND PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CHERRY OPTICAL INC., Defendant-Appellant ______________________
2024-1560 ______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in No. 1:20-cv-00352-WCG, Chief Judge William C. Griesbach. ______________________
Decided: October 15, 2025 ______________________
MARK A. JOTANOVIC, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Troy, MI, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by JOHN S. ARTZ, Ann Arbor, MI.
JASON JUST, Amundsen Davis LLC, Green Bay, WI, ar- gued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by SHERRY DAWN COLEY, TIFFANY WOELFEL. ______________________
Before PROST, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. Case: 24-1560 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 10/15/2025
PER CURIAM. Appellant Cherry Optical Inc. (“Cherry”) appeals the denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court had granted summary judg- ment in Cherry’s favor but determined that the case was not “exceptional” so as to warrant an award of attorneys’ fees to Cherry under § 285. See Inland Diamond Prods. Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., No. 20-C-352, 2024 WL 448307 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 6, 2024). In a separate opinion issued today, we vacated the dis- trict court’s summary judgment and remanded. See Inland Diamond Prods. Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., No. 24-1106 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025). At oral argument in this appeal, Cherry sensibly allowed that, if we were to vacate the sum- mary judgment, this appeal would become moot. See Oral Arg. at 0:33–1:07. 1 We agree and therefore dismiss this appeal as moot. DISMISSED
1 No. 24-1560, https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral- arguments/24-1560_06022025.mp3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inland-diamond-products-co-v-cherry-optical-inc-cafc-2025.