Case: 24-1560 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 10/15/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ INLAND DIAMOND PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff-Appellee v. CHERRY OPTICAL INC., Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2024-1560 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in No. 1:20-cv-00352-WCG, Chief Judge William C. Griesbach. ______________________ Decided: October 15, 2025 ______________________ MARK A. JOTANOVIC, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Troy, MI, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by JOHN S. ARTZ, Ann Arbor, MI.

JASON JUST, Amundsen Davis LLC, Green Bay, WI, ar- gued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by SHERRY DAWN COLEY, TIFFANY WOELFEL. ______________________ Before PROST, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 24-1560 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 10/15/2025

2 INLAND DIAMOND PRODUCTS CO. v. CHERRY OPTICAL INC.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Cherry Optical Inc. (“Cherry”) appeals the denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court had granted summary judg- ment in Cherry’s favor but determined that the case was not “exceptional” so as to warrant an award of attorneys’ fees to Cherry under § 285. See Inland Diamond Prods. Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., No. 20-C-352, 2024 WL 448307 (E.D.

Wis. Feb. 6, 2024).

In a separate opinion issued today, we vacated the dis- trict court’s summary judgment and remanded. See Inland Diamond Prods. Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., No. 24-1106 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025). At oral argument in this appeal, Cherry sensibly allowed that, if we were to vacate the sum- mary judgment, this appeal would become moot. See Oral Arg. at 0:33–1:07. 1 We agree and therefore dismiss this appeal as moot.

DISMISSED

1 No. 24-1560, https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral- arguments/24-1560_06022025.mp3.