Case: 12-1403 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 11/26/2012

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate5 (!Court of ~eaI5 for tbe jfeberaI (!Circuit

SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. GORDINI U.S.A., INC., Defendant-Appellee.

2012-1403

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in case no. 10-CV-0892, Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. KOMBILTD., Defendant-Appellee.

2012-1404 Case: 12-1403 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 11/26/2012

SERIUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES V. GORDINI U.S.A., INC. 2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in case no. 10-CV-1217, Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

ON MOTION

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and SCHALL, Circuit Judges. SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The parties jointly move for extensions of time and to remand these cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California due to settlement.

The parties state they have settled the cases and re- quested indicative rulings from the district court, pursu- ant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1, whether the district court would defer, deny, or grant motions to vacate the underly- ing judgments if the cases were remanded. The district court indicated pursuant to Rule 62.1(a)(3) that it would grant the motions.

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. The appeals are held in abeyance pending the resolution of the motions by the district court. The parties should promptly inform this court of the district court's Case: 12-1403 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 11/26/2012

3 SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES V. GORDINI U.S.A., INC.

rulings on the motions and should propose how they believe the appeals should proceed in light of the district court's rulings. In granting the motions, the Federal Circuit takes no position as to whether the district court should grant the motions for vacatur.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The amended motions to remand are granted to the limited extent explained above. The court retains jurisdiction over the appeals at this time.

(2) All other pending motions are moot.

(3) The briefing schedules are stayed.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s19