Opinion
2012-1208
08-24-2012
MONDIS TECHNOLOGY LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD., ALSO KNOWN AS FOXCONN INNOLUX DISPLAY CORP., LITE-ON TECHNOLOGY CORP., LITE-ON TRADING USA, INC., TPV TECHNOLOGY, LTD., INNOLUX CORP., AND CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS INNOLUX DISPLAY CORPORATION, Defendants, AND TPV INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC., TPV ELECTRONICS (FUJIAN) CO. LTD., ENVISION PERIPHERALS INC., TOP VICTORY ELECTRONICS (FUJIAN) CO. LTD., AND TOP VICTORY ELECTRONICS (TAIWAN) CO. LTD., Defendants-Appellants.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in consolidated case nos. 07-CV-0565 and 08-CV-0478, Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
ON MOTION
ORDER
TPV International (USA), Inc. et al. (TPV) submit a motion to enjoin an arbitration and to expedite briefing and argument. The parties did not self-expedite briefing. Upon review of the motion and the briefs, the court directs TPV to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
TPV appeal an order of the district court that denied their motion to enjoin an arbitration. TPV argues in its brief that this is appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (appeal of a final decision in a patent case) and Solis v. Current Dev. Corp., 557 F.3d 772 (7th Cir. 2009) (appeal may be taken from post-judgment order addressing all issues raised). Solis did not involve an appeal of an order denying a motion to enjoin arbitration. The court notes that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § (b)(4), prohibits appeals "taken from an interlocutory order . . . refusing to enjoin an arbitration that is subject to this title." See also Hardie v. United States, 367 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (dismissing appeal from order denying, inter alia, motion to enjoin arbitration).
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) TPV is directed to show cause, within 14 days of the date of filing of this order, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Mondis Technology Ltd. may also respond by that date.
(2) The motion to stay is held in abeyance. The motion to expedite is denied.
FOE THE COURT
______________
Jan Horbaly
Clerk
cc: Jonathan D. Hacker, Esq.
Martin J. Black, Esq.
s8