Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00824/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00824-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARPER IMAGE CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota

corporation, IONIC PRO, LLC, a

Delaware corporation, IDEAL PRODUCTS,

LLC, a Nevis (offshore) corporation,

SYLMARK, INC., a Delaware

corporation, SYLMARK, LLC, a Delaware

corporation, QWIK COOK, INC. d/b/a

HOME TRENDS, a New York corporation,

FACTORIES2U, LLC, a California

corporation, and CHAIM MARK BESS, an

individual,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-0824 CW

ORDER DENYING

APPROVAL OF

STIPULATION OF

DISMISSAL AND

ORDERING PARTIES

TO SUBMIT

PROPOSED FINDING

AND PARTIAL

JUDGMENT

The parties in this case have submitted a stipulation of

dismissal without prejudice of the claims and counterclaims

remaining in this case, in order to allow the Court to enter a

purportedly final judgment and to permit an immediate appeal of the

matters decided in the Court's March 29, 2006 Order Addressing

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. According to the agreement, if

the appeal of this case resulted in a remand, their remaining

claims and counterclaims would be consolidated with the remanded

proceedings, and if the appeal did not result in a remand, the

remaining claims and counterclaims would be submitted for "binding

Case 4:04-cv-00824-CW Document 921 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Although this case will be appealed to the Federal Circuit

instead of the Ninth Circuit, the Federal Circuit applies the law

of the pertinent regional circuit in determining the finality of

the district court's entry of judgment. See Golan v. Pingel

Enterprise, Inc., 310 F.3d 1360, 1366 n.3 (applying James v. Price

Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

2

mediation" before Judge Eugene Lynch. A pre-trial conference is

currently scheduled for April 28, 2006. 

Having considered the stipulation as filed by the parties, the

Court finds that it would run afoul of Ninth Circuit case law

disapproving of such agreements as a manipulation of the finality

requirement.1 See, e.g., James, 283 F.3d at 1066 (citing cases

finding no appellate jurisdiction where finality was artificially

manufactured by dismissal without prejudice); Dannenberg v.

Software Toolworks, Inc., 16 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We see

this as a clear, and impermissible, attempt to circumvent Rule

54(b). . . . [L]itigants should not be able to avoid the final

judgment rule without fully relinquishing the ability to further

litigate unresolved claims.”; Cheng v. Comm’r, 878 F.2d 306 (9th

Cir. 1989) (same). The stipulations that were rejected by the

Ninth Circuit in Dannenberg and Cheng provided, as the parties

propose here, that unresolved claims be dismissed without

prejudice, and be revived only if the Ninth Circuit remanded other

claims for re-trial. 

Because Ninth Circuit law disallows this solution, entry of

partial judgment would provide the next most efficient resolution. 

The parties may submit, prior to the April 28 pretrial conference,

if possible, proposed findings in support of partial judgment

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which provides:

Case 4:04-cv-00824-CW Document 921 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an

action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or

third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved,

the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to

one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties

only upon an express determination that there is no just

reason for delay and upon an express direction for the

entry of judgment.

The Supreme Court in Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric

Company, 446 U.S. 1 (1980) described the analysis a district court

should conduct in deciding whether to enter partial judgment under

Rule 54(b):

[T]he district court must . . . determine whether there

is any just reason for delay. Not all final judgments on

individual claims should be immediately appealable, even

if they are in some sense separable from the remaining

unresolved claims. The function of the district court

under the Rule is to act as a “dispatcher.” It is left

to the sound judicial discretion of the district court to

determine the “appropriate time” when each final decision

in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal. This

discretion is to be exercised “in the interest of sound

judicial administration.”

Thus, in deciding whether there are no just reasons

to delay the appeal of individual final judgments in

setting [sic] such as this, a district court must take

into account judicial administrative interests as well as

the equities involved. Consideration of the former is

necessary to assure that application of the Rule

effectively “preserves the historic federal policy

against piecemeal appeals.” It was therefore proper for

the District Judge here to consider such factors as

whether the claims under review were separable from the

others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature

of the claims already determined was such that no

appellate court would have to decide the same issues more

than once even if there were subsequent appeals.

Id. at 8 (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427,

435-38 (1956) (internal citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has

described the standard for entering partial judgment under Rule

54(b) as follows:

Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for the

unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying

Case 4:04-cv-00824-CW Document 921 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the

appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the

litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some

claims or parties. The trial court should not direct

entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) unless it has made

specific findings setting forth the reasons for its

order. Those findings should include a determination

whether, upon any review of the judgment entered under

the rule, the appellate court will be required to address

legal or factual issues that are similar to those

contained in the claims still pending before the trial

court. A similarity of legal or factual issues will

weigh heavily against entry of judgment under the rule,

and in such cases a Rule 54(b) order will be proper only

where necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust result,

documented by further and specific findings.

Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981)

(internal citations omitted). 

The parties should also include a proposed partial judgment

containing their agreement conditionally to dismiss their remaining

claims and counterclaims without prejudice. The proposed judgment

should provide that Judge Lynch, or another mutually agreeable

mediator if he is unavailable, will mediate the case. It should

also provide that if the parties are unable to settle the case

through mediation, Judge Lynch will adjudicate the case, and his

adjudication will result in a binding judgment not subject to

appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/25/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00824-CW Document 921 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 4