Court Opinion

ID: 9400524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 16:01:21.51015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:45.999887
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1758    Document: 16      Page: 1    Filed: 06/08/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

  WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC, dba Brazos Licensing
              and Development,
               Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

   DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL, INC., EMC
         CORPORATION, VMWARE, INC.,
              Defendants-Appellees
             ______________________

                         2023-1758
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG,
 Judge Alan D. Albright.
             -------------------------------------------------

  WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC, dba Brazos Licensing
              and Development,
               Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

   DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL, INC., EMC
         CORPORATION, VMWARE, INC.,
              Defendants-Appellees
             ______________________
Case: 23-1758     Document: 16     Page: 2    Filed: 06/08/2023

 2          WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC   v. DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.

                         2023-1759
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-cv-00481-ADA-DTG,
 Judge Alan D. Albright.
             -------------------------------------------------

     WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC, dba Brazos Licensing
                 and Development,
                  Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

      DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL, INC., EMC
            CORPORATION, VMWARE, INC.,
                 Defendants-Appellees
                ______________________

                         2023-1761
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG,
 Judge Alan D. Albright.
                  ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

       Before PROST, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
    Dell Technologies Inc., Dell, Inc., EMC Corp., and
 VMware, Inc. (collectively, “Dell”) move to dismiss the
 above-captioned appeals as premature.           WSOU
Case: 23-1758     Document: 16      Page: 3    Filed: 06/08/2023

 WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC    v. DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.            3

 Investments LLC (“WSOU”) opposes, or, in the alternative,
 requests deactivation. For the following reasons, we dis-
 miss Appeal No. 2023-1758 and deactivate Appeal
 Nos. 2023-1759 and 2023-1761. 1
     WSOU filed the above-captioned cases alleging patent
 infringement of three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,164,800;
 7,092,360; and 7,539,133. The district court consolidated
 the cases, which ultimately went to trial. On Febru-
 ary 21, 2023, the district court held a hearing concerning
 the ’800 and ’360 patent cases and announced from the
 bench that it was granting appellees’ motion “under
 Rule 56 . . . for judgment as a matter of law that there is no
 direct infringement” and “that there are no damages for
 those two [patents].” Appeal No. 2023-1758, ECF No. 4-2
 at 7–10 (Tr. 130:25–133:22).
     Two days later, on February 23, 2023, the district court
 held a hearing for the ’133 patent case. At the hearing,
 appellees made an oral “Rule 50(a) motion” focused on non-
 infringement, which the district court granted. Appeal
 No. 2023-1758, ECF No. 4-3 at 7–8 (Tr. 679:24–680:13;
 722:10–20). The court then noted that it would prepare a
 written order after the parties filed their written submis-
 sions regarding the motion. Id. at 50 (Tr. 722:10–21). The
 court had also noted that it would “take [defendants’ 35
 U.S.C. § 101 argument] up at the end of trial.” Id. at 12
 (Tr. 684:14–21). WSOU filed a notice of appeal for each
 case.

     1    “[C]onstituent cases retain their separate identi-
 ties at least to the extent that a final decision in one is im-
 mediately appealable by the losing party,” so we assess the
 finality of the district court’s decision for each of the con-
 solidated cases individually. Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118,
 1131 (2018).
Case: 23-1758     Document: 16      Page: 4    Filed: 06/08/2023

 4          WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC    v. DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.

      In general, we only have jurisdiction to review a “final
 decision of a district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); see
 FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Invs. Mortg. Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269,
 273–74 (1991) (“For a ruling to be final, it must end the
 litigation on the merits, and the judge must clearly declare
 his intention in this respect.” (cleaned up)). Here, the par-
 ties appear to agree that issues remain for the district court
 to resolve in each case such that there is no final decision
 in any of the cases. See Appeal No. 2023-1758, ECF No. 4-
 1 at 6 (noting no “final ruling on the dispositive motions”
 has been entered), ECF No. 1-2 at 2–3 (noting anticipated
 “forthcoming order[s]” addressing the merits in each case).
 But that does not completely resolve the matter.
      Even where there is no final decision, federal courts
 have long recognized that a premature notice of appeal can
 become effective under certain circumstances. See Buffkin
 v. Dep’t of Def., 957 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2020). For
 example, under Federal Rule of Appellate Proce-
 dure 4(a)(2), “[a] notice of appeal filed after the court an-
 nounces a decision . . . is treated as filed on the date of and
 after the entry” of final judgment. That rule “only [applies,
 however,] when a district court announces a decision that
 would be appealable if immediately followed by the entry
 of judgment,” FirsTier, 498 U.S. at 276 (emphasis in origi-
 nal). 2
     Rule 4(a)(2) cannot save WSOU’s appeal in the ’133 pa-
 tent case from being dismissed because the district court
 clearly indicated that its bench ruling did not end the

     2   Although the Supreme Court did not address “the
 operation of the Rule when the jurisdiction of the court of
 appeals is founded on a statute other than [28 U.S.C.]
 § 1291,” FirsTier, 498 U.S. at 274 n.4, we have applied the
 Court’s holding to analogous district court appeals under
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), see PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc.,
 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Case: 23-1758     Document: 16     Page: 5    Filed: 06/08/2023

 WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC   v. DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.            5

 court’s involvement with the merits of the case—the par-
 ties were directed to file written submissions regarding
 Dell’s motion and the court expressly noted that it had not
 yet resolved the § 101 issue. Thus, it was unreasonable for
 WSOU to understand the court’s bench ruling to be an im-
 mediately appealable final decision and WSOU provides no
 persuasive argument for us to deactivate, rather than dis-
 miss, such a clearly premature appeal. See Dieser v. Cont’l
 Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding unre-
 solved issues at the time of appeal defeated application of
 Rule 4(a)(2)).
      However, we reach a different conclusion about the dis-
 trict court’s bench ruling in the ’800 and ’360 patent cases.
 The record of that ruling and the parties’ submissions pro-
 vided to this court indicate ambiguity as to whether the
 district court thought there was anything left for it to do
 other than enter final judgment in those cases. See Appeal
 No. 2023-1758, ECF No. 4-2 at 5–10 (Tr. 129:23–130:15;
 128:19–133:21). The parties appear to now agree that no
 final decision has been entered and that these appeals are
 premature, but WSOU’s decision to immediately appeal
 from the district court’s bench ruling in those cases was not
 so unreasonable as to bar application of Rule 4(a)(2). See
 FirsTier, 498 U.S. at 277 (“Under such circumstances, [ap-
 pellant’s] belief in the finality of the January 26 bench rul-
 ing was reasonable, and its premature February 8 notice
 therefore should be treated as an effective notice of appeal
 from the judgment entered on March 3.”).
     Accordingly,
Case: 23-1758    Document: 16     Page: 6    Filed: 06/08/2023

 6         WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC    v. DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.

     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The motions are granted to the following extent.
 Appeal Nos. 2023-1759 and 2023-1761 are deactivated.
 Within 30 days from the date of entry of final judgment,
 the parties are directed to inform the court how they think
 those appeals should proceed.
     (2) Appeal No. 2023-1758 is dismissed for lack of juris-
 diction. Each party shall bear its own costs with respect to
 Appeal No. 2023-1758.
                                      FOR THE COURT

  June 8, 2023                        /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
     Date                             Jarrett B. Perlow
                                      Acting Clerk of Court

 ISSUED AS A MANDATE (Appeal No. 2023-1758 only):
 June 8, 2023