Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co., No. 09-1040 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2009)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 09-1040
Decided
February 19, 2009
Judge
Prost, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1040

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CARDIAC SCIENCE OPERATING COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in

case no. 08-CV-543, Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

ON MOTION

Before GAJARSA, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Philips) moves to stay proceedings in this appeal pending district court action. Cardiac Science operating Company (Cardiac) opposes. The court considers whether Philips’ appeal should be dismissed as premature. On September 23, 2008, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order dismissing Philips’ complaint. Although the court’s October 9, 2008 judgment states that “there are no remaining issues for the Court to resolve,” the district court never explicitly dismissed Cardiac pending counterclaim. Because the district court has not yet entered an order dismissing Cardiac’s counterclaim, we deem the better course is to dismiss the appeal as premature. See2 Nystrom v. Trex Co., 339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003). After the district court has adjudicated Cardiac’s counterclaim and entered final judgment, the parties may file any timely appeals. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Philips’ motion is denied. (2) The appeal is dismissed. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

____Feb. 6, 2009 _/s/ Jan Horbaly__________________ Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Eric H. Chadwick, Esq. Paul Thomas Meiklejohn, Esq. J. Michael Jakes, Esq.

s20

2009-1040 2

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co., No. 09-1040 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2009).

Record ID
CAFC-09-1040-20090219
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-09-1040-20090219

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.