Court Opinion

ID: 9386107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 15:01:08.402906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:47.423638
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1362    Document: 14     Page: 1   Filed: 04/11/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

   VROOM, INC., VROOM AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, dba
   Vroom, dba Texas Direct Auto, CARSTORY, LLC,
           VAST.COM, INC., dba CarStory,
                 Plaintiffs-Appellees

                             v.

           SIDEKICK TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
                Defendant-Appellant
               ______________________

                        2023-1362
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of New Jersey in No. 2:21-cv-06737-WJM-JSA,
 Senior Judge William J. Martini.
                 ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

   Before LOURIE, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
 WALLACH, Circuit Judge.
                        ORDER
    Vroom, Inc. et al. (collectively, “Vroom”) move to dis-
 miss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.       Sidekick
Case: 23-1362     Document: 14      Page: 2    Filed: 04/11/2023

 2                   VROOM, INC.   v. SIDEKICK TECHNOLOGY, LLC

 Technology, LLC opposes the motion. For the following
 reasons, we dismiss the appeal as premature.
      Vroom filed a complaint at the district court seeking:
 (1) a declaration of non-infringement as to 12 of Sidekick’s
 patents; (2) a declaration that Vroom is “free and clear to
 make, use, offer for sale and sell the functionalities availa-
 ble at their websites and/or any corresponding mobile de-
 vice application despite any rights [Sidekick] purports to
 own,” ECF No. 5 at 90; and (3) an injunction against Side-
 kick “from representing to anyone that [Vroom is] infring-
 ing on any rights [Sidekick] purports to own,” id. * Sidekick
 counterclaimed for patent infringement. Vroom answered
 the counterclaim with affirmative defenses, including that
 the patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Vroom
 then moved for judgment on the pleadings based on its
 § 101 argument. On June 28, 2022, the district court
 granted that motion and dismissed Sidekick’s counter-
 claims with prejudice. Sidekick moved for reconsideration,
 which the district court denied on October 18, 2022.
      On January 4, 2023, Sidekick contacted the district
 court to inquire about the status of the case, and the dis-
 trict court entered a docket entry stating “Civil Case Ter-
 minated” backdated to June 28, 2022. Sidekick filed a
 notice of appeal and moved the district court for entry of
 final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of
 Civil Procedure or for certification under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1292(b). On March 21, 2023, the district court denied the
 motion, noting that the court dismissed Sidekick’s

     *    Vroom also sought a finding that this is an excep-
 tional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award of attor-
 neys’ fees and costs. The fact that the district court has not
 yet acted on that request, however, would not preclude ju-
 risdiction over an otherwise appealable judgment. See
 Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC,
 927 F.3d 1292, 1303–04 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Case: 23-1362      Document: 14     Page: 3     Filed: 04/11/2023

 VROOM, INC.   v. SIDEKICK TECHNOLOGY, LLC                     3

 counterclaims “as an invalid patent [claim] cannot be in-
 fringed” and that it “appear[s] that the Court . . . already
 entered final judgment on the merits.” ECF No. 11 at 5.
     This court’s jurisdiction generally extends only to a “fi-
 nal decision of a district court,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), i.e.,
 one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves noth-
 ing for the court to do but execute the judgment,” Catlin v.
 United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). Here, while the
 district court is correct that its order granting Vroom’s mo-
 tion for judgment on the pleadings necessarily resolved
 Vroom’s claims for declaratory judgment of non-infringe-
 ment, see TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374
 F.3d 1151, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] judgment of invalid-
 ity necessarily moots the issue of infringement.”), at least
 Vroom’s request for injunctive relief remains pending, ren-
 dering this appeal premature. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
 Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 744–45 (1976); Henrietta D. v. Giuli-
 ani, 246 F.3d 176, 180 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting that a decla-
 ration does not have the effect of a final judgment “when
 other remedial issues remain unresolved”).
     We therefore grant the motion to dismiss and expect
 the parties and the district court to promptly resolve the
 outstanding request for relief.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
      (1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal
 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject to reinstate-
 ment under the same docket number without the payment
 of an additional filing fee if, within 60 days of the date of
 filing of this order, Sidekick appeals from a final judgment
 entered on the entire case or a judgment entered under
 Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case: 23-1362     Document: 14     Page: 4     Filed: 04/11/2023

 4                  VROOM, INC.   v. SIDEKICK TECHNOLOGY, LLC

     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                     FOR THE COURT

 April 11, 2023                      /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
      Date                           Peter R. Marksteiner
                                     Clerk of Court