Full text
David A. TROPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONAIR CORPORATION, HP Marketing Corp. Ltd., L.C. Industries, LLC, Master Lock Company LLC, Samsonite Corporation, Titan Luggage USA, Travelpro International Inc., and TRG Accessories, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, and Briggs & Riley Travelware LLC, Defendant-Appellee, and VF Outdoor, Inc., Brookstone Company, Inc., and Brookstone Stores, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Delsey Luggage Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and eBags, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and Magellan’s International Travel Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Tumi, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and Wordlock, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and Eagle Creek, a Division of VF Outdoor, Inc., and Outpac Designs Inc., Defendants
RADER, Chief Judge. David A. Tropp sued Defendants-Appel-lees, eighteen manufacturers and distributors of luggage, for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,021,537 (the ’537 patent) and 7,036,728 (the ’728 patent) in connection with their use of a dual-access luggage lock system designed and licensed by Travel Sentry, Inc. (“Travel Sentry”).
In September 2010, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York awarded declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’537 and ’728 patents to Travel Sentry. Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp (Travel Sentry I), 736 F.Supp.2d 623, 639 (E.D.N.Y.2010). The district court then dismissed the present case as barred by collateral estoppel based on the decision in Travel Sentry I. Tropp v. Conair Corp., No. 08-cv-4446, 2011 WL 3511001, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88559 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011).
Tropp appeals, and this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). This court recently vacated and remanded the Travel Sentry I decision for a determination of whether Travel Sentry is liable for indirect infringement under the standard set forth in this court’s en banc opinion in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed.Cir.2012).
Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp (Travel Sentry II), No. 2011-1023, -1367, — Fed.Appx. -, -, 2012 WL 5382736, at *8-9, 2012 U.S.App. LEXIS 22691, at *25 (Fed.Cir. Nov. 5, 2012). Because Travel Sentry II vacated the decision that formed the basis of the district court’s application of collateral estoppel, that doctrine no longer applies. There *570 fore, this court vacates the dismissal of the present action and remands for further proceedings. VACATED AND REMANDED