Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_98-cv-00266/USCOURTS-cand-3_98-cv-00266-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Microsoft Corporation
Counter-claimant
Martin Gardner Reiffin
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN GARDNER REIFFIN,

Plaintiff,

v

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

No C 98-0266 VRW

 ORDER

After the court entered the parties’ stipulated final

judgment on May 5, 2010, Doc #604, defendant Microsoft Corporation,

on May 11, filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to 35 USC §

285. Doc #606. The parties also have filed notices of appeal and

cross-appeal. See Docs #600, 605, 609, 621. In opposition to

Microsoft’s motion for fees, plaintiff argues that this court

should “hold this motion in abeyance pending” appeal, since if

judgment were reversed the motion would be rendered moot. Doc #617

at 5. Microsoft does not seem to address this suggestion in reply. 

See Doc #623.

//

Case 3:98-cv-00266-WHA Document 624 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

The advisory committee note to the 1993 amendments to

FRCP 54(d) provide: “If an appeal of the merits of the case is

taken, the court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its

ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice,

directing * * * a new period for filing after the appeal has been

resolved.” See also, for example, Tancredi v Metropolitan Life Ins

Co, 378 F3d 220, 223, 225-26 (2d Cir 2004). Whether to proceed

with Microsoft’s motion forthwith or to defer pending appeal

therefore is a matter committed to the court’s discretion.

The court finds that deferring its ruling on Microsoft’s

motion is the efficient course, as disposition at this juncture

could result either in wasted or duplicated effort. Therefore,

consistent with FRCP 54(d), adjudication of Microsoft’s motion for

attorney fees is hereby DEFERRED. The clerk is DIRECTED to

terminate Microsoft’s motion for attorney fees, Doc #606, as an

administrative matter. Microsoft may re-notice its motion within

sixty (60) days of issuance of appellate mandate, in which event

the parties may submit further briefing to the extent necessary in

light of the disposition of the issues on appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:98-cv-00266-WHA Document 624 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 2