Legal Document

508 U.S. 83 113 S.Ct. 1967 124 L.Ed.2d 1 CARDINAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, etc., et al., Petitionersv.MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC. No. 92-114. Argued March 3, 1993. Decided May 17, Syllabus * Since its 1987 decisions in Vieau v. Japax, Inc., 823 F.2d 1510, and Fonar Corp. Johnson & Johnson, 821 627, the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from all District Courts patent litigation, followed practice routinely vacating declaratory judgments regarding validity following a determination noninfringement patent. Adhering to that this similar case brought by respondent, Circuit affirmed Courts' findings particular defendants had not infringed respondent's two patents on chemical compounds used polyvinyl chloride, then vacated entry judgments, defendants' counterclaims, declaring invalid. A third such is still pending. Petitioners, alleged infringers case, sought certiorari ground erred applying per se rule what should be discretionary matter. Respondent did oppose grant certiorari, but instead pointed out it also an interest having issue adjudicated, have been effectively stripped any power marketplace Circuit's refusals substantive review invalidity findings. Held: The affirmance finding sufficient reason judgment holding Pp. ____. (a) opinions indicate limited cases convinced entirely resolved controversy between litigants resolving initial complaint patentee. concluded "moot" jurisdictional sense, conclusion considers dictated Court's earlier Electrical Fittings Thomas Betts Co., 307 241, 59 860, L.Ed. 1263, Altvater Freeman, 319 359, 63 1115, 87 1450. (b) While both are consistent with at issue, neither required it. involve judgment, does necessarily answer question whether, absence ongoing infringement dispute parties, adjudication would moot. (c) This become moot when finding. concerns jurisdiction. Where, as here, (established independently patentee's charge) consider counterclaim, so court last resort entitled presume, absent further information, federal continues. If, before decided either party advised material change circumstances terminated their controversy, proper dismiss appeal or vacate entire judgment. In fact, however, there was no change. decision rely one possible alternative grounds (noninfringement rather than invalidity) strip decide second question, particularly decree subject Court. Even if may good more necessary determine appeal, clear invalidity. Accordingly, supported Article III's "case controversy" requirement. (d) cannot other grounds. Although court's efficient management docket might support requiring always addressed validity, even important countervailing concerns, including successful litigant's preserving value hard-won judgment; public's strong interests finality litigation questions; correctly adjudicated avoiding loss patent's practical consequence routine vacatur. denies patentee appellate review, prolongs life invalid patents, encourages endless (or least uncertainty) outstanding thereby vitiates announced Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. University Illinois Foundation, 402 313, 91 1434, 28 788. (e) It abuse discretion case. factors unusual justify refusal reach merits determination, therefore appropriately vacated, alone, nor anything else record, justifies result here. three separate lawsuits, parties asked resolve dispute. P. 959 948 (CA Fed.1992), remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous respect Parts I, II, III, Part IV, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed concurring part SOUTER, Charles F. Schill, Washington, DC, petitioners. Gordon R. Coons, Chicago, IL, respondent. Justice STEVENS presented whether 2 Respondent, Morton International, (Morton), owner chloride (PVC).1 1983 action United States South Carolina alleging petitioners, Cardinal Chemical Company affiliates (Cardinal), those patents. denying counterclaim pending Court, actions against same One Eastern Louisi ana, Delaware. cases, like Cardinal, counterclaims were Of three, Louisiana tried first and, 1988, resulted defendant invalid.2 On invalidity.3 Delaware 3 1990 proceeded 5-day bench trial. concluded, failed prove defendant-counterclaimant proved convincing evidence invalid.4 mandated judgments: dismissing prejudice, another invalid.5 4 Again, appealed challenging dismissal claim cross-appeal contending award fees pursuant 35 U.S.C. § 285 sanctioned prosecuting frivolous appeal. third, Delaware, brief amicus curiae urging affirm invalidity.6 after affirming claim, explained: 5 "Since we district infringed, need address validity. 1517, USPQ2d 1094, 1100 (Fed.Cir.1987). invalidity." 948, 952 Fed.1992). 6 ruled liable because advanced argument "apparently position raise earlier." Ibid. Judge Lourie concurred result, believed "so they can plan future affairs accordingly." Id., 954. 7 Both petitions rehearing, arguing judgment;7 suggestions rehearing en banc, reconsider post-1987 whenever found. Over dissent judges, declined suggestions.8 Chief Nies thorough explanation dissent; she found "justification our legally 'policy'. . now look only Supreme correction." 967 1571, 1578 8 petition asserting errs Pet. Cert. 13. adjudicated.9 explained that, twice refused invalid, "effectively marketplace. If proceed infringer, court, likelihood accept twice-vacated holdings, just below adopted wholesale [Louisiana] without independent evaluation holdings correct. Further, accused infringer would, likelihood, argue attorney's done known better sue 'invalid patent'. Morton's essentially zero enforceable viewed jaundiced eye competitors courts alike. [Morton] lost valuable property rights due process law." Brief 16-17. 9 Because applied regularly since matter special importance Nation. We granted certiorari. 506 ----, 52, 121 21 (1992). 10 current originated different panels day. Vieau, adverse rulings damages, infringement, declared After noninfringement, : 11 "Our disposition renders propriety directed verdict issues damages willful infringement. There indication Japax's extends beyond litigated claims devices noninfringing. entered each mooted vacated. infringement." 1517. 12 Bennett opinion, fleshing perfunctory explaining "continuing (such presence threat litigation) remain unresolved noninfringement."10 13 627 Fed.1987), held holding, his panel, Markey 14 "There being J asserted remains parties. pass enforceability 2. [C]f. 363-65 [63 1117-1119, 1450] (1943) ('To hold valid hypothetical case,' where deals additional involved license issues.). 15 16 "The proven unenforceable dismissed moot." 634. 17 footnote emphasized longer specific charge noninfringement.11 18 patentee.12 opinions, 1263 (1939) 1450 (1943).13 begin comment cases. II 19 Fittings, infringed.14 content appealed, seeking reversal based prevailing favor. reversed, although could compel revisit (which immaterial case), demand That finding, explained, "stands litigated. think petitioners portion eliminated, jurisdiction, has, entertain purpose passing merits, direct reformation decree." U.S., 242, S.Ct., 860 (footnotes omitted). 20 Our command eliminated mandate (both suggest unneces sary validity), critically different. raised affirmative defense presumptively infringed,15 (as Fonar, here) basis An unnecessary ruling resolution Altvater, file requested defendant. non-infringement but, reasoning moot, reversed. Distinguishing wrote: 22 "To But situation present quite here bill counterclaim. Though disposes answer, dispose raises [T]he suit. requirements course less strict under Declaratory Judgments Act (48 Stat. 955, 400) suits. view justiciable come end non-infringement, went single suit." 363-364, 1117-1118 omitted; citations 23 Presumably emphasized, clause quoted, nature parties' dispute, assumed defendant's Judgment unless terms infringement.16 24 established turn question. III 25 Under practice, uniformly declares affirms if, usual extend us, intermediate court—not trial course, burden establishing existence actual controversy. Aetna Life Ins. Co. Haworth, 300 227, 240-241, 57 461, 463-464, 81 617 (1937).17 26 satisfy burden, seek action. described "the sad saddening scenario led enactment (Act), 2201. version scenario, engages danse macabre, brandishing Damoclean sheathed sword. Before Act, victimized tactic rendered helpless immobile long grasp nettle sue. restricted terrorem choice incurrence growing potential liability abandonment enterprises; air suing settle conflict interests. sole requirement real immediate, i.e., true, 'controversy' Act." Arrowhead Industrial Water, Ecolochem, 846 731, 734-735 Fed.1988) (citations 27 Merely desire avoid "scarecrow" patent, Learned Hand's phrase,18 establish Act. addition desire, actually charged is, necessarily, adequate complaint, therefore, perfectly Cardinal's equally presents infringement) (barring intervening events) Circuit. 29 bases conclusion. First, resort. while it, alive changes) comes us. reverse prevented considering merely lower thought superfluous. As possibility simply extremely remote, law do so, did, continued here.19 demonstrates, nothing prevents matter, reviewing (even vacatur) 30 Second, rests invoking once met suggests rendering below, bears coming forward subsequent events produced result. See W.T. Grant 345 629, 633, 73 894, 897, 97 1303 (1953).20 properly invoked original unquestionably Cf. Munsingwear, 340 36, 39, 71 104, 106, 95 36 (1950). noninfringement. IV 31 compelled III. nevertheless Appeal significant authority fashion rules govern own procedures. See, e.g., Ortega-Rodriguez States, 507 1199, 1205, 122 581 (1993); Arn, 474 140, 146-148, 106 466, 470-471, 88 435 (1985). Just adhered deciding statutory constitutional alternatives available, see, DeBartolo Florida Gulf Coast Building Construction Trades Council, 485 568, 575, 108 1392, 1397, 99 645 (1988), example, generally difficult time-consuming resolve, rule. 32 often concerns. Perhaps most litigant noted, "it obtained great effort expense."21 company must concerned about risk charges develops markets products future. Given demonstrating changed provide seeks action, why duty disclose plans retention obtained.22 33 Moreover, prior identified public litigation. Sinclair Carroll Interchemical Corp., 325 327, 65 1143, 89 1644 (1945), approved though infringed. Criticizing contrary approach taken courts, stated "of questions, greater importance, Cover Schwartz, 133 541 [ (CA2 1943) ], will usually inquiring fully into patent." 330, 1145. 34 large questions 788 (1971). overruled Triplett Lowell, 297 638, 56 645, 80 949 (1936), estop relitigating later infringer. commented length wasteful consequences fair trial,23 noted danger opportunity relitigate might, monopoly privileges holders patents.24 creates relitigation imposes burdens who Indeed, predicament illustrates, see supra, ____, injures public; unfairly deprive itself component full correctly. invalidated Vieau) upheld ), infringing devices. Blonder-Tongue.25 rejecting acknowledge determination—a appropriate vacate. Nor record urged validity; remanded proceedings opinion. 37 ordered. 38 whom SOUTER joins, 39 I agree became determined reach) declara tory ruling, decline erroneous "mootness" reason—constituting, effect, failure exercise all. join except IV. 40 determines upon remand, not, "on grounds," ante, ____ (emphasis added), continue declining these circumstances, set 1510 (1987). point much tied general principles am familiar, related peculiarities deal sporadically. reached unwilling lack adversary presentation. 41 adversariness frankly acknowledged oral argument. Tr. Oral Arg. 25, ("On held, difference whatsoever"). Petitioners respondent disagree some applications authority—applications clearly outside facts case—and utter agreement concerning practice. briefs starkly reflect uniformity: Respondent's brief, mere pages argument, incorporates reference petitioners' largely reflects Nies' denial banc below. 8-9. (Not surprisingly, bother reply responding echo.) Amici likewise weighed side them identifying submission "in respondents." Bar Association Amicus Curiae. harmony heartwarming (since reduces number briefs) environmentally sound, encourage us make bad law. 42 past, faced complete adversariness, appointed unrepresented side. Toibb Radloff, 501 n. 4, 111 2197, 2199, 115 145 (1991); Bob Jones 461 574, 585, 9, 599, 24, 103 2017, 2025, 2032, 76 157 (1983); Granville-Smith Granville-Smith, 349 1, 75 553, 555, 773 (1955). INS Chadha, 462 919, 939-940, 2764, 2778-2779, 77 317 (1983). wisdom shown Cheng Fan Kwok INS, 392 206, 210, 1970, 1973, 1037 (1968). one, Appeals' decide—the Third lacked INS's petitioner's application stay deportation. And agreed defend id., ended up rejected 43 total poses barrier resolution. Ante, 9. For prudential reasons, frame narrowly. say confidence mootness impermissible failing seems me enough moment. supposed fact policy, abandon never again. support, hear counsel reject policy hand. 44 opposed mootness) me, deserving involves practicalities specialized matters interpretation familiar. discuss benefits find discussed exclusive, 1295(a). suspect, exist, despite fragility justification today, enlisted experienced judges Circuit—who denied criticism dissenting denial, 1571 (1992), Lourie's panel concurrence, 45 concur syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. Patent 4,062,881, dated December 13, 1977, 4,120,845, October 1978. organotin mercaptoalkyl carboxylic acid ester sulfides—basically, sulfur tin serve heat stabilizers PVC, protecting decomposition, discoloration, strength. 949, Thiokol, Witco 84-5685 (EDLa. June 22, 1988), App. 10, 24-31, 36. Argus 1152 Fed.1989), judgt. order reported 873 1451 Fed.1989) (nonprecedential). follows: "We literal determined." 1153, 39. convincingly establishes person skilled art unable ascertain claimed structures Therefore, concludes language [claims] too vague definiteness 112." 67a. "Now, "IT IS ORDERED Clerk enter plaintiff's prejudice costs. FURTHER 4,062,881 4,120,845 invalid." 70a. F.2d, 950, (referring Atochem North America, 87-60-CMW (Del., Feb. 1987)). Those denied. 1992 U.S.App. LEXIS 7580 [1992 WL 51272] 71a, 72a. 10067 73a, 74a. adversarial posture correct presented, true dispute: absolute disagreement. collusion here; dulled adverseness them, 939, 2778, (1983) (finding Art. unconstitutionality one-House veto case; remained disagreement underlying Chadha deported). improper 1520. He added: "It illustrate, made International Medical Prosthetics [Research Assoc. Gore Enterprise Holdings], 787 [572] 229 USPQ [278] 281 Fed.1986) ] (burden plaintiff existed at, since, time filed). avoids unnecessarily situation." contains assertion infringes '832 methods infringe, J's machines infringe nonasserted apparatus claims. repeated defenses unenforceability form, objection J, dealt motion JNOV 2." 634, Japex, said developed uniform regularity applied. Shat-R-Shield, Trojan, 90014, *3, 9860, *7, 968 1226 Fed.) (nonprecedential), cert. denied, 201, 143 (1992); Winner Int'l Wolo Mfg. 905 375, 377 Fed.1990); Wilson Sporting Goods David Geoffrey Assoc., 904 677, 686 Neville Resinall 135903, 16549, 915 1584 Fed.1990) Freeman Minnesota Mining 1250, 884 1398 494 1070, 110 1794, 794 (1990); Senmed, Richard-Allan Industries, 888 815, 817 Fed.1989); Environmental Instruments, Sutron 877 1561, 1566 Julien Zeringue, 864 1569, 1152, (nonprecedential); Pfaff Wells Electronic, 1158, 1399 Specialized Electronics Aviation Supplies Academics, 1918, 1397 Sun-Tek Industries Kennedy Sky Lites, 848 179, 183 Fed.1988), 488 1009, 109 793, 102 784 (1989); Advance Transformer Levinson, 837 1081, 1084 Fed.1988); Pennwalt Durand-Wayland, 833 931, 939 Fed.1987) (en banc); Perini Paper Converting Machine 832 581, 584, Fed.1987). published 1987, Dana IPC Ltd. Partnership, 415 reaching referring Fonar. 1518-1519 (Bennett, concurring); "Instead more, adjudicating 860. presumed valid. presumption obviously resurrected vacates invalidity, makes revived lacks 1518-1521 affords determining established. Brillhart Excess 316 491, 494-496, 62 1173, 1175-1176, 86 1620 (1942). Bresnick Vitamin 139 239, 242 1943). Commenting Deposit Guarantee Nat. Bank Roper, 445 326, 335, 100 1166, 1172, 427 (1980), "Although function decree, relevant instant retained notwithstanding favor yet considerations permitted final stake outcome, live perceived distinction definitive ousts requires stage terminate right appeal." 953 (Lourie, concurring) ("[B]ecause resort, render bec ause over. base grounds, leaving available Court"). To extent relying Bennett's concurrence infra, imposed show attach Appeals, error. Bearing disappeared. 1577 (Nies, banc). added footnote: "Nor unmindful expense court. Avern Cohn Michigan (the judge) stated, discussion recent Judicial Conference: 'I took six months write JNOV, very proud my work product. read state shock ten minutes.' Cohn, Remarks Breakout Session Tenth Annual Conference (April 30, 1992)." 1577, require disclosure. counterclaimant licensee, obligations depend nowhere ensured violate rights. "In lawsuit defendant, mutuality principle, forced arguable misallocation resources. suit win asserting, contradiction, fairly, unsuccessfully, suit, money diverted uses—productive otherwise —to issue. And, assuming allocation Permitting supply unrelated holds aura gaming table 'a discipline disinterestedness hardly worthy wise fashioning procedure.' Kerotest C-O-Two 342 180, 185 [72 219, 222, 96 200] (1952)." 329, 1443. successive enjoys easily put expensive proof. consequence, prospective paying royalties settlement preferable costly 338, 1448. tendency multiply opportunities exact licensing agreements settlements considered context recognizing system's desirable stimulus invention, which, law, economic attending monopolies. yielding returns device fails meet congressionally criteria patentability anomalous." 342-343, scholarly comment, consistently criticized Harmon, Patents 551-554 (2d ed. 1991); Wegner, Morton, Dual Loser Patentee: Frustrating Blonder-Tongue, 74 J.Pat. Trademark Off.Soc. 344 (1992) ("A dual loser loses given judicial blessing tribunal again Vieau"); Re Rooklidge, Vacating Invalidity Upon Appellate Determination Noninfringement, 72 780 (1990). Donofrio, Disposition Unreviewable 462, 464 (1991) ("[T]he [even unreviewable] permits destroy conclusiveness holdings.")

Classification Label: 8