Opinion ID: 208857
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: It is first necessary to determine whether the case is properly before this court. ATT contends that the present appeal is untimely, as it was filed more than ten months after the district court’s February 27, 2007 opinion construing the phrase “legal costs and expenses,” and determining that contractually based costs and expenses did not 2008-1290 2 extend to costs and expenses of defending against the patent infringement and unfair competition claims. The 2007 order, however, did not dispose of the entire controversy surrounding paragraph 17, as it reserved judgment on the actual amount of the award granted. The district court decided which kinds of costs to award, and calculated the amount of those costs, on February 26, 2008. Atlas’s appeal to this court regarding the district court’s interpretation of paragraph 17 was timely with respect to the 2008 order. A denial of costs or attorney’s fees under Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is collateral to, and separately appealable from, the merits of an underlying suit. See Fed. R. App. P. 4. Although Atlas asserted more than one theory under which it was entitled to attorney’s fees, the decision on appeal to this court is the construction of the parties’ contractual fee provision clause, and not a Rule 54 motion. See Capital Asset Research Corp. v. Finnegan, 216 F.3d 1268, 1270 (11th Cir. 2000). The legal costs and expenses awarded pursuant to the disputed contract was not a final judgment until the district court’s interpretation of the contract language was applied to Appellant’s expense reports and the amount of the contractually-based award was calculated. Cf. Special Devices, Inc., v. OEA, Inc., 269 F.3d 1340, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Mendenhall v. Barber-Grene Co., 26 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We find that the district court’s decision not to include attorney’s fees in the award was not “wholly collateral” to the merits of the contractually-based claim for legal costs and expenses and therefore was not immediately appealable. Buchanan v. Stanships, 485 U.S. 265, 268-69 (1988). The district court’s reservation of judgment on the amount of the contractuallybased award carried with it a reservation of jurisdiction over the district court’s interpretation of the relevant contract language. To find otherwise would require Atlas 2008-1290 3 to appeal related issues within a single case at different times. Such a piecemeal appellate review is inconsistent with this court’s limitation of jurisdiction to final judgments and would undermine judicial economy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).