Case Name: A-1 ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pang "Jeffrey" CHANG, Yue "William" Bai, Yu "Stephen" Zhang, Chi Tsou "Joe" Yu, PC Micro Center International, Inc., and Fry's Electronics, Inc., Defendants, and GPB Enterprises, Inc. and Great Energy Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-23
Citations: 96 F. App'x 716
Docket Number: No. 04-1162
Parties: A-1 ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pang “Jeffrey” CHANG, Yue “William” Bai, Yu “Stephen” Zhang, Chi Tsou “Joe” Yu, PC Micro Center International, Inc., and Fry’s Electronics, Inc., Defendants, and GPB Enterprises, Inc. and Great Energy Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 716–716

Head Matter:
A-1 ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pang “Jeffrey” CHANG, Yue “William” Bai, Yu “Stephen” Zhang, Chi Tsou “Joe” Yu, PC Micro Center International, Inc., and Fry’s Electronics, Inc., Defendants, and GPB Enterprises, Inc. and Great Energy Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 04-1162.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
April 23, 2004.
Vincent Y. Lin, Principal Attorney, Industry, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Frank Frisenda, Jr., Principal Attorney, El Monte, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
SCHALL, Circuit Judge.
GPB Enterprises, Inc. and Great Energy Co., Ltd. (GPB) respond to this court's March 10, 2004 order directing them to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed as premature.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California decided, on summary judgment, that GPB Enterprises, Inc. did not have standing to pursue its counterclaim regarding design patent infringement and that the patent was invalid. The district court also granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its copyright infringement claim against some, but not all, defendants. The judge stated that "judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff and Counterdefendant's favor consistent herewith." However, GPB does not assert that there has been a disposition of all pending claims or that a Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b) judgment was entered. Thus, any attempt to appeal is premature. Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 339 F.3d 1347 (Fed.Cir.2003).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
We need not decide, at this juncture, whether we or the regional circuit would have jurisdiction over an appeal in this case. Even if this appeal should have been filed in the regional circuit, we would decline to transfer the appeal because the appeal is premature. 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (a court shall transfer an action over which it does not have jurisdiction to the appropriate court "if it is in the interest of justice").