Court Opinion

ID: 9366993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 16:01:24.164915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.856350
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2122    Document: 21      Page: 1    Filed: 01/30/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

    IMPRENTA SERVICES, INC., MIKE SANCHEZ,
              Plaintiffs-Appellants

                              v.

  NICHOLAS PATRICK KARLL, ECO PACKAGING
                SOLUTIONS,
             Defendants-Appellees
            ______________________

                         2022-2122
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Central District of California in No. 2:20-cv-06177-GW-
 PVC, Judge George H. Wu.
                  ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

    Before TARANTO, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
                         ORDER
      Nicholas Patrick Karll and Eco Packaging Solutions
 (collectively, “Eco”) move to dismiss this appeal for lack of
 jurisdiction. Imprenta Services, Inc. and Mike Sanchez
 (collectively, “Imprenta”) oppose dismissal.
Case: 22-2122      Document: 21      Page: 2     Filed: 01/30/2023

 2                             IMPRENTA SERVICES, INC.   v. KARLL

     Imprenta filed this action in the United States District
 Court for the Central District of California for declaratory
 judgment of non-infringement of Eco’s patent, declaratory
 judgment of inequitable conduct, and to correct inventor-
 ship. Eco asserted a counterclaim for patent infringement
 and state law counterclaims for breach of contract and
 breach of warranty. Eco also sought to enjoin future patent
 infringement by Imprenta.
     The district court granted Eco’s motions for summary
 judgment of correct inventorship, no inequitable conduct,
 and willful patent infringement. The court also granted-
 in-part Eco’s motion for sanctions. The court subsequently
 entered an order setting the sanctions amount while defer-
 ring a ruling on infringement damages and enhanced dam-
 ages. Imprenta filed a notice of appeal seeking review of
 those decisions, as well as orders on evidentiary objections
 and claim constructions. ECF No. 1-2 at 2–3.
     Our jurisdiction generally extends only to a “final deci-
 sion of a district court,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), i.e., one that
 “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the
 court to do but to execute the judgment,” Catlin v. United
 States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). That is not the situation
 here. The court decisions from which Imprenta attempts
 to appeal did not end the litigation, as it is undisputed that,
 among other things, the district court has not reached a fi-
 nal decision on the state law claims. See Pandrol USA, LP
 v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
 2003) (“A judgment that does not dispose of pending coun-
 terclaims is not a final judgment.” (citation omitted)).
     Imprenta suggests that this matter is “final except for
 an accounting” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c). But that
 narrow exception to the final judgment rule does not apply
 here, at least because Eco’s request for injunctive relief re-
 garding patent infringement remains pending. See Liberty
 Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737 (1976) (no final deci-
 sion when injunction request is outstanding); Johannsen v.
Case: 22-2122     Document: 21        Page: 3   Filed: 01/30/2023

 IMPRENTA SERVICES, INC.   v. KARLL                           3

 Pay Less Drug Stores Nw., Inc., 918 F.2d 160, 164 (Fed. Cir.
 1990) (noting that district court ruling that did not adjudi-
 cate motion for injunctive relief, inter alia, is not final ex-
 cept for an accounting).
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
      (1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal
 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject, however, to re-
 instatement under the same docket number without the
 payment of an additional filing fee if, within 60 days of this
 order, Imprenta appeals from the entry of a final judgment
 appealable under either 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c) or § 1295(a)(1)
 or from a judgment entered under Rule 54(b) of the Federal
 Rules of Civil Procedure.
     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                       FOR THE COURT

 January 30, 2023                      /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
      Date                             Peter R. Marksteiner
                                       Clerk of Court

 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 30, 2023