NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CODEXIS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ENZYMEWORKS, INC., SUZHOU HANMEI 

BIOTECHNOLOGY CO. LTD, DBA 

ENZYMEWORKS, INC. (CHINA), JUNHUA TAO, 

ANDREW TAO,

Defendants-Appellants

______________________

2018-1655

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 3:16-cv-00826-WHO, 

Judge William H. Orrick, III.

______________________

Decided: February 8, 2019

______________________

DOUGLAS ETHAN LUMISH, Latham & Watkins LLP, 

Menlo Park, CA, for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by 

GABRIEL GROSS; GABRIEL BELL, Washington, DC. 

 J. JAMES LI, LiLaw, Inc., Los Altos, CA, for defendantsappellants. Also represented by ANDY PIERZ.

 ______________________
2 CODEXIS, INC. v. ENZYMEWORKS, INC.

Before DYK, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

EnzymeWorks, Inc., Suzhou Hanmei Biotechnology 

Co., d/b/a EnzymeWorks, Inc. (China), Junhua Tao, and 

Andrew Tao (collectively “EnzymeWorks”) appeal from orders of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

California. The district court imposed sanctions on EnzymeWorks’s counsel for unreasonably multiplying the 

proceedings and violating the local rules (“Sanctions Order”). The district court also held EnzymeWorks in contempt of a district court protective order and imposed 

sanctions for violating the order (“Contempt Order”). We 

affirm the Contempt Order and remand to allow the district court to vacate the Sanctions Order.

BACKGROUND

I

On February 19, 2016, Codexis, Inc. (“Codexis”) sued 

EnzymeWorks, asserting patent infringement, trade secret 

misappropriation, and various state law claims. On August 11, 2017, Codexis filed a motion for leave to amend its 

complaint to add two new state law claims. EnzymeWorks 

opposed the motion. EnzymeWorks argued, among other 

things, that the proposed amendments were futile and 

would not survive a motion to dismiss. The district court 

determined that the proposed amendments were not futile 

and granted Codexis’s motion for leave on September 25, 

2017. Three days later, Codexis filed a second amended 

complaint adding these new claims.

On September 27, 2017, EnzymeWorks sought leave to 

file a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order 

granting Codexis leave to amend the complaint. EnzymeWorks “raised the same argument [it raised in opposition to Codexis’s motion for leave], without citing new 
CODEXIS, INC. v. ENZYMEWORKS, INC. 3

facts, new law or a manifest failure by the Court to consider 

such facts or law,” as required by the local rules. Codexis, 

Inc. v. EnzymeWorks, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00826, 2017 WL 

5992130, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2017). On October 9, 

2017, EnzymeWorks filed a motion to dismiss the new 

claims, asserting the same arguments for a third time.

On December 4, 2017, the district court issued the 

Sanctions Order. The court denied EzymeWorks’s motion 

for leave to file a reconsideration motion and motion to dismiss and imposed sanctions on EnzymeWorks. The court 

ordered EnzymeWorks’s counsel to “pay plaintiff’s counsel 

$10,000 as a civil sanction for needlessly multiplying this 

litigation and violating the Local Rules.” Id.

On February 5, 2018, the parties notified the district 

court that they had settled the underlying dispute and submitted a stipulated consent judgment of patent infringement and a stipulated permanent injunction. The parties 

also filed a stipulated protective order, which restricted the 

parties’ comments on the settlement. The district court approved and entered the three stipulated orders. Pursuant 

to the settlement agreement, the court dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice. 

In connection with the settlement, EnzymeWorks also 

filed an unopposed motion to vacate the Sanctions Order. 

The district court did not immediately act on the motion. 

On March 6, 2018, EnzymeWorks filed a notice of appeal 

with respect to the Sanctions Order. While the appeal was 

pending, the district court purported to vacate the Sanctions Order. 

II

Immediately after the parties settled, and after entry 

of the district court’s protective order, EnzymeWorks issued a series of press releases. On February 20, 2018, Codexis filed a motion to hold EnzymeWorks “in contempt for 
4 CODEXIS, INC. v. ENZYMEWORKS, INC.

violating the [stipulated protective order] because defendants issued press releases that did not use the agreed upon 

statement and that spun the litigation and parties in a way 

that the [stipulated protective order] was designed to 

avoid.” Codexis, Inc. v. EnzymeWorks, Inc., No. 3:16-cv00826, 2018 WL 1536655, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2018).

On March 29, 2018, the district court issued the Contempt Order. The court found EnzymeWorks in contempt 

of the stipulated protective order and sanctioned EnzymeWorks. Specifically, the court (1) “award[ed] Codexis’s counsel the full amount of its reasonable attorneys’ 

fees and costs incurred in connection with these contempt 

proceedings and with their efforts to secure defendants’ 

compliance with the [stipulated protective order]”; and (2) 

ordered EnzymeWorks to retract the press releases and, in 

that same retraction, publish the following statement:

EnzymeWorks has been ordered by the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of 

California to retract its prior statements and press 

releases pertaining in any way to the settlement of 

the lawsuit filed against it by Codexis, Inc. The 

Court has found EnzymeWorks’s prior statements 

on the matter were made IN VIOLATION OF A 

COURT ORDER, and the Court has found EnzymeWorks . . . IN CONTEMPT OF COURT as a 

result of those prior statements.

Id. at *9. EnzymeWorks subsequently amended its March 

6, 2018 notice of appeal to appeal the Contempt Order. 

III

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c). 

When reviewing non-patent law issues, such as the imposition of sanctions or the standard for contempt, we apply 

the law of the regional circuit. The Ninth Circuit reviews 

a district court’s “decision to impose sanctions for contempt

for an abuse of discretion.” In re Crystal Palace Gambling 
CODEXIS, INC. v. ENZYMEWORKS, INC. 5

Hall, Inc., 817 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1987). “A contempt order will not be reversed unless [the court] ha[s] a 

definite and firm conviction that the court below committed 

a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached after 

it weighed the relevant factors.” Id.

DISCUSSION

I

EnzymeWorks argues the district court abused its discretion in holding it in contempt because its press releases

did not violate the stipulated protective order. We disagree.

A district court has the authority to punish “contempt 

of its authority,” including a party’s “[d]isobedience” of an

“order.” 18 U.S.C. § 401(3); accord Int’l Union, United 

Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831 (1994); 

Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1390 (9th 

Cir. 1995). Civil contempt “consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure to take 

all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply.” 

Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Dual–Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993)). 

The contempt “need not be willful,” but “a person should 

not be held in contempt if his action appears to be based on 

a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the court’s order.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The stipulated protective order provided that 

[t]he parties may make only the agreed statement, 

attached as Exhibit 1, to any third party concerning the settlement of the above-captioned action. 

The parties are prohibited from making any other 

statement or disclosure regarding the settlement of 

this action to any third party.
6 CODEXIS, INC. v. ENZYMEWORKS, INC.

Codexis, 2018 WL 1536655, at *3 (alteration in original)

(emphases added). The agreed statement was a single paragraph and stated that the parties “have reached a settlement concerning the lawsuit filed by Codexis against

EnzymeWorks,” the terms of the settlement “are confidential,” the parties have “stipulated to a judgment of patent 

infringement . . . and a permanent injunction barring any 

future infringement,” and the remaining claims “have been 

dismissed with prejudice.” Id. It is undisputed that EnzymeWorks did not use the agreed statement verbatim in 

its press releases, which were each multiple paragraphs. 

For example, one of the press releases stated that “[f]rom 

the very beginning, EzymeWorks decided not to oppose the 

patent infringement claims because of the limited exposure, but fiercely denied any other liabilities throughout 

the case.” Id. at *6, *8. The press release then directed the 

reader to a prior EnzymeWorks press release discussing 

Codexis’s claims negatively. Id.

The district court found that the press releases contained more than mere stylistic changes from the agreed 

upon language. It found that the press releases materially 

deviated from the agreed statement and spun the litigation 

and settlement in a way more favorable to EnzymeWorks. 

The court found that EnzymeWorks did not take all reasonable steps within its power to comply with the order and 

that its interpretation of the stipulated protective order 

was not reasonable. Thus, it held EnzymeWorks in contempt. 

We do not find that the district court abused its discretion in holding EnzymeWorks in contempt for violating the 

stipulated protective order. We have considered EnzymeWorks’s remaining arguments and find them without 

merit. 
CODEXIS, INC. v. ENZYMEWORKS, INC. 7

II

EnzymeWorks also asks this court to vacate the Sanctions Order because the district court purported to vacate 

the order after EnzymeWorks filed its first notice of appeal

and thus lacked jurisdiction to vacate the order. 

We agree that the filing of EnzymeWorks’s first notice 

of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction to vacate 

the Sanctions Order. “The filing of a notice of appeal is an 

event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction 

on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its 

control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 

U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam).1

 

1 This is in contrast to the Contempt Order entered 

after the first notice of appeal was filed, because the contempt proceeding was a separate proceeding for purposes 

of finality. Although EnzymeWorks should have filed a 

separate notice of appeal rather an amended notice of appeal as to the Contempt Order, it is the substance, not the 

form, of the notice that counts for purposes of Federal Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 3. See Becker v. Montgomery, 532 

U.S. 757, 767–68 (2001) (collecting cases) (“[I]mperfections 

in noticing an appeal should not be fatal where no genuine 

doubt exists about who is appealing, from what judgment, 

to which appellate court.”); Intercargo Ins. v. United States, 

83 F.3d 391, 394–95 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[W]hile it is the filing 

of the notice of appeal that confers jurisdiction on the appellate court . . . , strict adherence to the requirements of 

Rule 3 is not a prerequisite to a valid appeal, as long as the 

litigant's action is ‘the functional equivalent of what the 

rule requires.’”); Cel-A-Pack v. Cal. Agric. Labor Relations 

Bd., 680 F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir. 1982) (“[C]ourts of appeals 

have discretion, when the interests of substantive justice 
8 CODEXIS, INC. v. ENZYMEWORKS, INC.

We therefore remand to the district court to allow the

court to vacate the Sanctions Order. 

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

COSTS

Costs to Codexis.

 

require it, to disregard irregularities in the form or procedure for filing a notice of appeal.”).