Whether the court below erroneously held, in conflict with a decision of the Third Circuit, that it may vacate a district court's consent final judgment and instruct the district court to revive the case, after dismissing the appellant's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In accordance with Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978) and Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, ___—siUS.. _, 1878.Ct. 1702 (2017), the Federal Circuit in this case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from a consent final judgment requested by in order to appeal an otherwise unappealable interlocutory evidentiary ruling limiting damages at trial. After properly dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, however, the Court exercised jurisdiction over the final judgment by vacating the district court’s consent final judgment and instructing the district court to revive the case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit refused to consider Petitioner’s cross appeal. The Federal Circuit’s decisions thus raised the following questions which were implicated, but not answered, in the above decisions in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, and Microsoft Corp. v. Baker: 1. Whether the court below erroneously held, in conflict with a decision of the Third Circuit, that it may vacate a district court’s consent final judgment and instruct the district court to revive the case, after dismissing the appellant’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction? 2. Maya federal court of appeals refuse to consider a cross-appeal of a final collateral order, if the main appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, leaving the cross-appellant without any ability to appeal?