InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

my3sons: Based on an old Supreme Court ruling, there was a long established practice in appeal courts to vacate a lower court decision if because of circumstances the case became moot while on appeal. However, more recent decisions have given appeal court judges more discretion in determining whether they should vacate the decision. Below is the conclusion from an article on the subject.

Personally, under current circumstances I don't see any benefit in IDCC appealing the decision.

"Conclusion
While the established practice of the Supreme Court in dealing with a civil case that has become moot pending the court’s decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below, the vacatur analysis must also take into account several other factors. These factors are (a) what caused the case to become moot—voluntary action of the parties or a “happenstance”; (b) whether the case originated from state court, particularly when it interpreted federal law; (c) whether the public interest would be best served by vacating a decision that had decided the previously live controversy between the parties—as in the case of qualified immunity; and (d) when in the appellate process the case became moot—before or after the issuance of the mandate. Throughout the weighing process, courts maintain a considerable amount of discretion in deciding whether to vacate an underlying judgment."

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/appellate/articles/spring2014-0414-consequences-mootness-appeal.html