Because the district court's dismissal of this case as moot was error, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See In re Nissim Corp., 428 F. App'x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (denying Nissim's request for mandamus); Nissim Corp. v. Clearplay, Inc. ("Nissim I"), 374 F. App'x 987 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (interpreting the settlement agreement). We have also previously declined to hear ClearPlay's appeal of its related case against Nissim for tortious interference with a contractual relationship.
For further background see the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit opinions and this Court's rulings in this and related cases. See ClearPlay Inc. v. Max Abecassis Nissim Corp., 602 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Nissim Corp. v. ClearPlay, Inc., 374 Fed. Appx. 987 (Fed. Cir. 2010); ClearPlay Inc. v. Nissim Corp., No. 10-13469, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14072 (11th Cir. July 7, 2011); and this Court's prior orders from case numbers 04-CV-21140 and 08-CV-80535. Defendant Nissim Corporation, founded and owned by co-Defendant Max Abecassis, holds patents in the area of video technology.
On appeal, we reversed and remanded for the district court to determine whether ClearPlay's filters substantially comply with the specifications. See Nissim Corp. v. ClearPlay, Inc., 374 Fed.Appx. 987, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2010). After our decision issued, Nissim took the position that Mr. Friedland's appointment had expired and that he would need to be re-appointed, to which Nissim would not consent.
See also the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit opinions and this Court's rulings in this and related cases. See ClearPlay Inc. v. Max Abecassis & Nissim Corp., 602 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Nissim Corp. v. ClearPlay, Inc., 374 Fed. Appx. 987 (Fed. Cir. 2010); ClearPlay Inc. v. Nissim Corp., No. 10-13469, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14072 (11th Cir. July 7, 2011); and this Court's prior orders from case numbers 04-CV-21140 and 08-CV-80535. A. Summary Judgment Standard