       NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
              __________________________

               THE PAW WASH, LLC,
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                           v.
                PAW PLUNGER, LLC,
                 Defendant-Appellant,
              __________________________

                      2012-1240
              __________________________

   Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri in case no. 08-CV-0113,
Judge Gary A. Fenner.
              __________________________

              Decided: December 14, 2012
              __________________________

    RICHARD L. BROPHY, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, of St
Louis, Missouri, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him
on the brief was JENNIFER E. HOEKEL.

    DAVID L. REIN, JR., Finch & Campbell, LLP, of Kansas
City, Missouri, argued for defendant-appellant.
                __________________________

  Before DYK, PLAGER, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.
PAW WASH   v. PAW PLUNGER                                 2


PER CURIAM.
    In this case, based on a certain settlement agreement
between the parties, the district court, on November 15,
2011, issued a permanent injunction enjoining Paw
Plunger, LLC (“Paw Plunger”) “from infringing the ‘391
patent by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling
in the United States of importing into the United States
the ‘Paw Plunger’ and any other products that infringe
one (1) or more claims of the ‘391 patent.” Paw Plunger
appeals. We affirm the decision of the district court with
one exception. The injunction granted by the district court
should have been limited to Claim 17 of the ‘391 patent.
Thus, the permanent injunction must be revised to read
as follows:
   ORDERED Defendant and each of its agents af-
   filiates, successors, servants, and employees, and
   any and all other persons or entities acting under
   Defendant’s authority, are hereby permanently
   enjoined from infringing the ‘391 patent by mak-
   ing, using, offering for sale, and/or selling in the
   United States or importing into the United States
   the “Paw Plunger” and any other products that in-
   fringe Claim 17 of the ‘391 patent.
In light of this decision, we vacate the district court’s
ruling and remand to the district court so that it may
enter an appropriate order.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED
                IN PART
                            COSTS
   Costs to appellee.
