Opinion ID: 207665
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of Unrelated Claims

Text: We review a dismissal without prejudice of a cause of action for infringement under the law of the pertinent regional circuit. L.E.A. Dynatech, Inc. v. Allina, 49 F.3d 1527, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The Fifth Circuit, the pertinent regional circuit here, reviews a dismissal without prejudice for abuse of discretion. See Ikospentakis v. Thalassic S.S. Agency, 915 F.2d 176, 177 (5th Cir. 1990). A reasonable likelihood of prejudice supports a finding of abuse of discretion. United States v. Simmons, 374 F.3d 313, 320 (5th Cir. 2004). Britannica argues that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed without prejudice the ’018 patent claims from the instant action sua sponte and cited no legal authority. Britannica contends that it could be unfairly prejudiced because Appellees could pursue a laches defense. After the district court entered the judgment dismissing the claims arising under the ’018 patent, it considered Britannica’s arguments, by way of a motion to amend, that dismissal was improper and could harm Britannica. The district court, acting within its broad discretionary powers to control its docket, determined that dismissal of these unrelated ’018 patent claims without prejudice was “judicially efficient” and would “not unfairly prejudice” Britannica. After filing its notice of appeal here, Britannica was 1 In light of our determination that the specification fails to provide sufficient structure for the “first retrieving means” limitation, we need not reach the issue of whether the “accessing means” limitation in claim 1 also renders the patent indefinite under § 112 ¶ 6. 2009-1087 11 granted leave and amended its complaint to assert the ’018 patent claims in a pending case, case no. 06-CV-578, in the same district court, before the same district judge, and against the same parties. Thus, because Britannica has failed to show that there is a reasonable likelihood of harm, Britannica has not met the high standard for demonstrating that the district court abused its discretion here.