Case ID: f-appx_426/html/0914-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROST, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

3D SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENVISIONTEC, INC., Envisiontec GMBH, and Sibco, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 2011-1340.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Aug. 17, 2011.
    Before BRYSON, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
   ON MOTION

PROST, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

3D Systems, Inc. moves to dismiss Envisiontec’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Envisiontec opposes. 3D Systems replies.

3D Systems asserted 12 patents against Envisiontec. A pretrial order allowed 3D Systems to designate a limited number of claims for trial and stayed proceedings on the remaining claims and patents, pending further order of the court. Following trial, the district court entered judgment on only the designated claims, but it has not yet entered any judgment relating to the remaining claims and patents. The district court did not certify its judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).

Because there are pending claims, there is no final judgment and this appeal is premature. See Nystrom v. TREX Co., 339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“If a case is not fully adjudicated as to all claims for all parties and there is no express determination that there is no just reason for delay or express direction for entry of judgment as to fewer than all of the parties or claims, there is no final decision ... and therefore no jurisdiction.”). Any adversely affected party may, of course, file a notice of appeal after the district court disposes of all claims and enters final judgment.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.