NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-1471,-1529

PODS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. PORTA STOR, INC., and CHRISTOPHER E. NEUGUTH,

Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________ DECIDED: April 6, 2006

___________________________ Before MAYER, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Defendants Porta Stor, Inc., and Christ opher E. Neuguth (collectively “Porta Stor”) appeal from two orders of the United States District Cour t for the Middle District of Florida. In the first, the court denied Porta Stor’s motion to compel discovery. In the second, the court denied Porta Stor’s motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction. Because Porta Stor’s discovery appeal is in terlocutory and not properly before us, we dismiss appeal No. 05-1529 for lack of jurisdiction. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse it s discretion when it denied Porta Stor’s motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, we affirm in appeal No. 05-1471.05-1471,-1529 2 BACKGROUND PODS, Inc., is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,071,062 (“the ’062 patent”), which is directed to an apparatus and met hod for lifting, handling, and transporting portable storage containers. In September 2004, PODS brought suit against Porta Stor, alleging infringement of the ’062 patent. At that time, PODS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Follo wing a hearing, the magistrate judge who was assigned to the case recommended that a preliminary inj unction be granted, based on a finding that PODS was likely to prevail on its claim of infringement of independent claims 1 and 29. On November 10, 2004, the district court adopted the m agistrate judge’s report and recommendation and issued a preliminar y injunction against Porta Stor. On December 3, 2004, Porta Stor filed a “motion for lifting,” i. e., dissolving, the preliminary injunction. When the parties subsequently agreed to engage in arbitration proceedings, that motion was denied without pr ejudice. On May 11, 2005, after the arbitration proceedings had ended, Porta Stor moved again to dissolve the preliminary injunction, arguing that t he court had improperly relied on the opinion of PODS’s engineering expert and that the prosecution history of t he ’062 patent did not support application of the doctri ne of equivalents as to two of t he limitations of claim 1. The magistrate judge denied the motion. With respec t to the new informati on that Porta Stor offered in its motion, the magistrate j udge explained that with due diligence Porta Stor could have presented that informa tion prior to the issuance of the preliminary injunction. Moreover, the magistrate judge observed that Porta Stor’s arguments in its motion to dissolve the injunction failed to address clai m 29. Because the original report and recommendation was based on a finding that PODS would likely prove infringement of05-1471,-1529 3 claims 1 and 29, the magistrate judge concl uded that Porta Stor’s “factual and legal arguments have little relevance.” Porta Stor appeals that decision. On June 22, 2005, Porta Stor filed a mo tion to compel discovery, seeking “a month by month list of the number of PODS employees, starting with September 2003,” as well as “a copy of all of the Employer ’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, Form 941 for each quarter . . . for a period of the last 5 years.” Finding that “the requested discovery is not relevant to a claim or defense of any party,” the magistrate judge denied Porta Stor’s motion. Porta Stor appeals that decision as well. The two appeals have been consolidated. DISCUSSION 1. At the outset, we not e that “as a general proposit ion most orders granting or denying discovery are not final orders within the meaning of section 1291 and therefore are not immediately appealable.” Rouse Constr. Int’l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp. , 680 F.2d 743, 745 (11th Cir. 1982). 1 Here, final judgment has not been rendered and the magistrate judge’s denial of Porta Stor’s motion to compel discovery is therefore interlocutory. We thus conc lude that Porta Stor’s appeal of the denial of its motion to compel discovery is not properly before us. Consequently, we dismiss appeal No. 05- 1529 for lack of jurisdiction. 2. Porta Stor has failed to show that the magistra te judge was wrong in holding that the new information submitted in connecti on with Porta Stor’s motion to dissolve the

1 Because the issues relating to the discovery appeal do not have special application in patent cases, we apply the law of the regional circuit to those issues, which in this case is the Eleventh Circuit. See Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Mfg. Co. , 744 F.2d 1564, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1984).05-1471,-1529 4 preliminary injunction could have been pr esented at the orig inal hearing on the injunction. For that reason, the magistrate judge properly denied the motion to dissolve the injunction. 2 In addition, as the magistrate judge pointed out, the district court entered the preliminary injunction on the basis of the magistra te judge’s conclusion that PODS had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that Porta Stor’s device infringed claims 1 and 29 of the ’062 patent. Because Porta Stor’s motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction was expressly limited to cl aim 1, and because we have held that in cases involving multiple patent claims a patentee seeking a preliminary injunction need only demonstrate that it will likely prove in fringement of one of those claims, Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc. , 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the magistrate judge was correct in holding that Porta Stor’s motion did not present sufficient grounds for dissolving the preliminary injunction. We therefore affirm in appeal No. 05-1471.

2 PODS argues that th is court does not have jurisdiction to hear Porta Stor’s appeal from the denial of the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunc tion. To be sure, a party may not make repeated motions to dissolve an injunction and appeal from the denial of each such motion when the motions to dissolve are in substance merely repetitive requests to recons ider the initial injunction providing no new grounds for dissolving the injunction. However, Port a Stor’s motion to dissolve presented new grounds for dissolving the injunction (albei t grounds that the magistrate judge ruled should have been presented at t he time of the prelimi nary injunction hearing). Moreover, Porta Stor did not make redundant motions to dissolve the injunction, but merely reasserted, after the arbitr ation proceeding had ended, the request it had previously made to dissolve the injuncti on (a request that the district court had dismissed without prejudice pendi ng the arbitration proceeding). Accordingly, we do not construe the motion to dissolve the prelim inary injunction as an untimely request for reconsideration of the order issuing the injunction or as a duplicative request for relief from the injunction. We t herefore have jurisdiction over the denial of the motion to dissolve the injunction under 28 U. S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1292(a)(1).