Court Opinion

ID: 9910770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 16:01:26.966497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:20.371870
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2286    Document: 19      Page: 1    Filed: 12/18/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

           PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
                  Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

                       FITBIT LLC,
                     Defendant-Appellee
                   ______________________

                         2023-2286
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Massachusetts in No. 1:19-cv-11586-FDS, Chief
 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV.
                  ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

    Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     Fitbit LLC moves to dismiss this appeal as premature.
 Philips North America, LLC (“Philips”) moves for an exten-
 sion of time to respond to Fitbit’s motion based on Philips’
 motion in the district court for entry of final judgment. The
 district court has since denied that motion without
Case: 23-2286     Document: 19      Page: 2    Filed: 12/18/2023

 2                    PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC v. FITBIT LLC

 prejudice, concluding that “it appears that [the court] is
 without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.” Dkt.
 No. 432.
     Philips sued Fitbit for patent infringement of U.S. Pa-
 tent Nos. 6,013,007 (the “’007 patent”); 7,088,233 (the “’233
 patent”); and 8,277,377 (the “’377 patent”). The district
 court concluded that the asserted claims in the ’007 patent
 were indefinite, Dkt. No. 212, and the asserted claims of
 the ’377 patent were invalid, Dkt. No. 401. The district
 court stayed proceedings as to the ’233 patent based on the
 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)’s finding that the
 claims were unpatentable. Dkt. No. 386. This court has
 since affirmed the PTAB’s decision, Philips N. Am., LLC v.
 Fitbit LLC, Nos. 2022-1223 et al., 2023 WL 2808489 (Fed.
 Cir. Apr. 6, 2023), but the district court has not yet issued
 an order lifting the stay or otherwise resolving the claims.
     In general, we only have jurisdiction after a “final deci-
 sion” from the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1);
 Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 809 F.3d 599, 604 (Fed.
 Cir. 2015). A “final decision” is one that “ends the litigation
 on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
 execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S.
 229, 233 (1945). “If a case is not fully adjudicated as to all
 claims for all parties and there is no express determination
 that there is no just reason for delay or express direction
 for entry of judgment as to fewer than all of the parties or
 claims, there is no ‘final decision’ under 28 U.S.C. §
 1295(a)(1) and therefore no jurisdiction.” Nystrom v.
 TREX Co., Inc., 339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see
 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Because the district court has not
 finally resolved all pending claims, there is no appealable
Case: 23-2286     Document: 19     Page: 3    Filed: 12/18/2023

 PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC v. FITBIT LLC                    3

 final decision. See PureWick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC,
 Appeal No. 23-1868, ECF No. 13 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2023). *
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) Fitbit’s motion is granted, and the appeal is dis-
 missed.
     (2) All other pending motions are denied.
     (3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                FOR THE COURT

 December 18, 2023
     Date

 cc: United States District Court for the District of Massa-
 chusetts
 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 18, 2023

     *   We acknowledge that Philips has not yet responded
 to Fitbit’s motion to dismiss, but Philips has sought exten-
 sions to respond to this motion while seeking entry of final
 judgment before the district court. Given our disposition of
 this appeal, the district court has jurisdiction to review any
 renewed motion for entry of final judgment.