Court Opinion

ID: 9405401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 15:07:48.879022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.769189
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1868     Document: 13    Page: 1   Filed: 06/28/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                PUREWICK CORPORATION,
                    Plaintiff-Appellee

                             v.

                 SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC,
                   Defendant-Appellant
                  ______________________

                         2023-1868
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Delaware in No. 1:19-cv-01508-MN, Judge
 Maryellen Noreika.
                 ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

    Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
                       Judges.
 LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
                          ORDER
     PureWick Corporation moves to dismiss this appeal for
 lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 4. Sage Products, LLC op-
 poses the motion and cross-moves to stay the appeal, which
 PureWick opposes. ECF No. 10.
Case: 23-1868     Document: 13      Page: 2    Filed: 06/28/2023

 2              PUREWICK CORPORATION     v. SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC

     PureWick filed this suit asserting infringement of four
 patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,287,508 (“the ’508 pa-
 tent”). The district court stayed proceedings on the ’508
 patent pending a related appeal regarding a final written
 decision from an inter partes review (“IPR”) that found the
 asserted claims unpatentable. After a trial, the jury found
 in favor of PureWick on the remaining three patents. The
 district court subsequently acted on various post-trial mo-
 tions on March 31, 2023, though there remain disputes re-
 garding final judgment. And while this court has affirmed
 the IPR decision, PureWick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC, No.
 2022-1697, 2023 WL 2808068 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2023), the
 district court has not taken further action on the ’508 pa-
 tent.
      Ordinarily, we only have jurisdiction to review a “final
 decision of a district court,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), which
 “end[s] the litigation on the merits, and the
 judge . . . clearly declare[s her] intention in this respect,”
 FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Invs. Mortg. Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269,
 273–74 (1991) (cleaned up). Here, the district court has not
 yet “decide[d] or dismisse[d] all claims and counterclaims
 for each party” relating to the ’508 patent. SafeTCare Mfg.,
 Inc. v. Tele-Made, Inc., 497 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir.
 2007). See ECF No. 4 at 13; ECF No. 10 at 17; PureWick
 Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC, No. 19-1508 (D. Del. Apr. 21,
 2023), ECF No. 371-1 at 5 n.6.
      Sage argues that its premature notice of appeal can be
 saved by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2), but,
 before the premature notice of appeal was filed, Sage itself
 told the district court that “this judgment is not final unless
 it disposes of all claims and defenses, including the ’508 pa-
 tent,” ECF No. 371-1 at 5 n.6. Thus, there was no reason-
 able basis to conclude that the court had entered a final
 decision before the notice of appeal was filed such that
 Rule 4(a)(2) does not apply. FirsTier, 498 U.S. at 273–74.
     Accordingly,
Case: 23-1868     Document: 13   Page: 3      Filed: 06/28/2023

 PUREWICK CORPORATION   v. SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC               3

    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is
 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
    (2) The motion to stay is denied.
    (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                        FOR THE COURT

  June 28, 2023                         /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
     Date                               Jarrett B. Perlow
                                        Acting Clerk of Court

 cc: United States District Court for the District of Dela-
 ware.