We grant the motion to the extent that we remand for the limited purpose of the district court's consideration of the parties' motions. See Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Ther-mo-Ply, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In granting this motion, this court takes no position on the propriety or necessity of vacatur, leaving it to the district court to apply the principles enunciated in U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994).

We grant the motion to remand to the extent that we remand for the limited purpose of the district court's consideration of Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.'s motion. Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We retain jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty days of entry of the district court's decision on remand.

We grant the motions to the extent that we remand for the limited purpose of the district court's consideration of the parties' motions. Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We retain jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty days of entry of the district court's determinations on remand.

We grant the motion to the extent that we remand for the limited purpose of the Board's consideration of the parties' motions. Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We retain jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty days of entry of the Board's determination on remand.

We grant the motion to remand to the extent that we remand for the limited purpose of the district court's consideration of the parties' motions. Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We retain jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty days of entry of the district court's decision on remand.

We grant the motion to the extent that we remand for the limited purpose of the Board's consideration of the parties' motions. Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We retain jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty days of entry of the Board's decision on remand.

We grant the motion to the extent that we remand for the limited purpose of the district court's consideration of the parties' motion for vacatur. Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We retain jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty days of entry of the district court's decision on remand.

Although the '892 patent has expired - and, thus, this case does not pose the potential of an invalid patent being asserted against another accused infringer - the public interest in invalidating patents that cannot survive a validity challenge certainly does not favor the relief sought by Gore. See Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Moore, J., concurring) ("The [Supreme] Court made clear that vacatur was an extraordinary remedy which petitioner would have to show equitable entitlement to. Only in exceptional circumstances should a district court grant vacatur at the request of the litigants. . . . In a patent case, especially where a patent has been invalidated, the public interest is overwhelming.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Although recently filed, this case has a long history, see Minemyer v. R-Boc Representatives, Inc, 2012 WL 2155240, 4 (N.D.Ill.,2012), confirming that "[p]atent litigations are among the longest, most time-consuming types of civil actions. As of 2009, 384 patent cases had been pending in the district courts for three years or more. Moreover, the costs of patent litigation are enormous with an average patent case costing upwards of $3 million for each side." Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374, 1376-77 (Fed.Cir. 2011)(citations omitted). Five years ago, the defendant in this case - Mr. Minemyer - filed a patent and trademark infringement suit against the plaintiffs in this case (and others) over their infringement of his patent on plastic couplers used to join conduit through which fiber optic cable runs. That case plodded along at great expense to the parties through enumerable motions and rulings - the docket is 527 entries long and there are some 18 opinions on WestLaw - until, finally, in February 2012, a jury found that R-Boc's couplers did, indeed, infringe Mr. Minemyer's patent.