NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate11 <!Court of ~peaI11

for tbe jfeberaI <!Circuit

RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. AND

RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP.,

Appellants,

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee,

AND

EASTMAN KODAK CO.,

Intervenor.

2012-1648

On appeal from the United States International Trade

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-703.

ON MOTION

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and SCHALL, Circuit

Judges.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

Case: 12-1648 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 11/21/2012
RESEARCH IN MOTION v. ITC

ORDER

2

Eastman Kodak Co. (Kodak) moves for leave to intervene and seeks to dismiss this appeal for lack of standing.

Research In Motion Ltd. et al. (RIM) oppose the motion to

dismiss.

This appeal arises out of a 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 and Apple infringed claim 15

of the '218 Patent but ultimately determined that claim

15 of the '218 Patent is invalid and therefore RIM and

Apple did not violate 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 of the 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. Brashear Freight Lines,

Case: 12-1648 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 11/21/2012
3 RESEARCH IN MOTION v. 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 the judgment 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 of section 337 because the patent is invalid, the importer or seller of the 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 within the meaning of subsection

(c) and do not give standing to appeal to a respondent

dissatisfied with those findings."). In view of the lTC's

finding that they did not violate section 337, RIM is

without standing to appeal. Accordingly, RIM's appeal

must be dismissed.

Since RIM has been granted the right to intervene in

2012-1588, RIM may advance in its brief in support of the

lTC's final determination any argument preserved in the

Case: 12-1648 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 11/21/2012
RESEARCH IN MOTION v. ITC 4

ITC. Mass. Mutual, 426 U.S. at 479. Whether those

arguments are proper, however, are determinations best

left to the merits panel assigned to hear the case.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) Kodak's motions are granted.

(2) The revised official caption is reflected above.

(3) The appeal is dismissed.

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26

Issued As A Mandate: _N_O_V_2_1_2_01_2

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