The CAFC contemplates the Federal Arbitration Act in Let's Go Aero

The CAFC gets into the Arbitration Act in Let's Go Aero v. Cequent.

From the case



A settlement agreement that resolved an earlier lawsuit
between Let’s Go Aero, Inc. and Cequent Performance
Products, Inc. contains an arbitration provision
that governs certain disputes that might arise between
the parties. When Let’s Go Aero brought the present
action against Cequent, asserting patent-infringement
and other claims, Cequent invoked that arbitration provision
by filing a motion to stay the litigation and to compel
arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.
§§ 3, 4. The district court analyzed the twelve claims of
Let’s Go Aero’s complaint and concluded that six come
within the arbitration provision and six do not. Challenging
the non-arbitrability conclusion as to the latter group
of six claims, Cequent appeals the resulting order entered
by the district court, invoking 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1). We
dismiss the appeal. The order does not deny the requested
§ 3 stay and so is outside § 16(a)(1)(A). Although the
order refuses to compel arbitration, which is within
§ 16(a)(1)(B), our ruling on arbitrability would be advisory
as to that refusal, which undisputedly is compelled by an
independent ground we cannot disturb. We therefore do
not address arbitrability, which the parties now agree will
be decided de novo by another district court in a separate
action brought by Cequent under the Arbitration Act.



link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1308.Opinion.3-1-2016.1.PDF