NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate11** 

# <!Courtof**~peaI11** 

# fortbejf 

# eberaI<!Circuit

RESEARCH INMOTIONLTD. AND



### RESEARCH INMOTION CORP., Appellants,


### v. INTERNATIONALTRADE COMMISSION, Appellee,
AND 

### EASTMANKODAK CO., Intervenor.

2012-1648

On appealfrom the United States InternationalTrade Commissionin Investigation No. 337-TA-703.


### ONMOTION

Before RADER, 

### ChiefJudge, LOURIEandSCHALL, 

### Circuit Judges. SCHALL, 

### CircuitJudge. Case: 12-1648 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 11/21/2012RESEARCHINMOTIONv. ITC
ORDER 2

Eastman Kodak Co. (Kodak) moves for leave to intervene and seeks to dismiss this appeal for lack ofstanding. Research In Motion Ltd. et al. (RIM) oppose the motion to dismiss. This appeal arises out ofa complaint brought by Kodak at the International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging that RIM and Apple Inc.'s (Apple) infringement of claim 15 of

## u.s. Patent No. 6,292,218 (the '218 Patent) constituted violations of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. In its final decision, the ITC affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that RIM andApple infringedclaim 15 ofthe '218 Patent but ultimately determined that claim 15 ofthe '218 Patent is invalid and therefore RIM and Apple did notviolate section 337. Kodak has appealed from the lTC's final determination, in which RIM will be participating as intervenor. 

### See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2012-1588. RIM now additionally seeks its own appeal from the same ITC determination. The statute authorizing this court's jurisdiction over such cases provides that only parties "adversely affected by a final determination ofthe ITC" may appeal to this court. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c). We agree with Kodak that RIM's appeal does not fall within those authorized by section 337(c). It is well established, as a general matter, that it is only necessary and appropriate for a party to file an appeal or cross-appeal when seeking to alter the judgment. 

### See Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ludwig, 426 U.S. 479 (1976); 

### Pub. Servo Commn. v. BrashearFreightLines, Case: 12-1648 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 11/21/20123 RESEARCH INMOTIONv. ITC


### Inc., 306 U.S. 204, 206 (1939); 

### United States v. Am. Ry. Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435 (1924). It is equally clear that when thejudgment entered is that the patent asserted is invalid, there is no basis for the defendant to appeal from a ruling of infringement. This court addressed and rejected such an appeal in a district court case in 

### TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2004). There, we explained that because invalidity operates as a complete defense to infringement for any product, reversal as to infringement would not affect the scope of the judgment. 

### See id. (citing 

### Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 1998». The same analysis applies in section 337 cases. When the ITC renders a final determination that a product is not in violation ofsection 337 because the patent is invalid, the importer or seller ofthe product has no standing to appeal since any adverse infringement or invalidity finding in the lTC's decision would not alter the scope of the lTC's final determination. 

### See Surface Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 780 F.2d 29, 30-31 (Fed. Cir. 1985); 

### Krupp Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 626 F. 2d 844,846 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ("[F]indings associated with the ultimate determination that section 337 has not been violated are not final determinations withinthe meaning ofsubsection (c) and do not give standing to appeal to a respondent dissatisfied with those findings."). In view ofthe lTC's finding that they did not violate section 337, RIM is without standing to appeal. Accordingly, RIM's appeal mustbe dismissed. Since RIM has been granted the right to intervene in 2012-1588, RIM may advance inits briefin support ofthe lTC's final determination any argument preserved in the Case: 12-1648 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 11/21/2012RESEARCHINMOTIONv. ITC 4
ITC. 

### Mass. Mutual, 426 U.S. at 479. Whether those arguments are proper, however, are determinations best leftto the merits panel assignedto hearthe case. Accordingly,
IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) Kodak's motions are granted. (2) The revised officialcaptionis reflected above. (3) The appealis dismissed. (4) Each side shallbearits own costs.
FOR THE COURT
/s/JanHorbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s26 IssuedAs AMandate: 

### _N_O_V_2_1_2_01_2 Case: 12-1648 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 11/21/2012