M2m Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedApril 19, 2022
Docket22-1437
StatusUnpublished

This text of M2m Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc. (M2m Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, 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.

Bluebook
M2m Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2022).

Opinion

Case: 22-1437 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 04/19/2022

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

M2M SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff

BLACKBIRD TECH LLC, dba Blackbird Technolo- gies, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2022-1437 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:14-cv-01102-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge. Case: 22-1437 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 04/19/2022

2 M2M SOLUTIONS LLC v. SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC.

ORDER Appellant Blackbird Tech LLC, d/b/a Blackbird Tech- nologies (“Blackbird”) states that “the filing of this appeal may have been premature” and thus moves unopposed to voluntarily dismiss its appeal under Federal Rule of Appel- late Procedure 42(b). Blackbird further requests that if its appeal is premature, no additional filing fees be required for filing a subsequent appeal. Blackbird appeals from the district court’s January 3, 2022, decision granting Sierra Wireless America, Inc. and Sierra Wireless Inc.’s motion for attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Neither that decision nor any subsequent filing has yet quantified the amount of the attorney fees, however, and “[w]e lack jurisdiction over the unquantified attorney’s fees decision.” Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, 927 F.3d 1292, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2019). This appeal thus is premature, though we will allow it to be reinstated under the same docket number, without the payment of an additional filing fee, if, within 60 days of this order, Blackbird appeals from the entry of a final at- torney fees award. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject, however, to re- instatement under the same docket number, without pay- ment of any additional filing fee, if, within 60 days of this order, Blackbird appeals from the entry of a final attorney fees award. The mandate shall issue simultaneously with this order. Case: 22-1437 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 04/19/2022

M2M SOLUTIONS LLC v. SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC. 3

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

April 19, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: April 19, 2022

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
M2m Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m2m-solutions-llc-v-sierra-wireless-america-inc-cafc-2022.