NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court
2009-1397, -1398
NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P.
(formerly known as Varco, L.P.)
Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v.
PASON SYSTEMS USA CORP.,
Defendant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in
case no. 1:03-CV-02579, Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch.
ON MOTION
Before SCHALL, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
L.P. (Varco) moves to dismiss 2009-1397, arguing that the National Oilwell Varco,
District of Colorado improperly directed entry of final United States District Court for the
54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pason Systems judgment pursuant to Rule USA Corp. (Pason) opposes.
Varco brought this patent infringement suit against Pason seeking compensatory damages and permanent injunctive relief. Pason’s answer included, inter alia, both an afÏrmative defense and a counterclaim of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. The district court bifurcated the inequitable conduct issues and held a jury trial on
After the trial, the jury rendered a verdict finding that the infringement and invalidity.
2not invalid and that Varco was entitled to $14,000,000 in patent was infringed and damages.
On April 30, 2009, the district court sua sponte entered an order issuing its final judgment on the infringement claims pursuant to Rule 54(b). Although the inequitable conduct defense had not been decided, the district court determined that there was no just reason to delay entry of final judgment. Varco now moves to dismiss that appeal.
Pursuant to Rule 54(b):
When an action presents more than one claim for relief or
muttiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry when of a final judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties only if
court expressly determines that there is no just reason for the delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however, designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
In order for Rule 54(b) to apply, the judgment must be final with respect to one or
not final for Rule 54(b) purposes unless it is “an ultimate more claims. A judgment is disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Sears,
Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1992). When a judgment is certified Roebuck & Co. v. pursuant to Rule 54(b), an appellate court must review the finality of the judgment de novo to assure that it has jurisdiction. Id, at 437.
Here, it was improper for the district court to enter Rule 54(b) judgment because the inequitable conduct defense is pending. Thus, the patent infringement claim was not
W.L. Gore v. Int] Medical Prosthetics Research, 975 F.2d 858, 864 finally adjudicated. (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Rule 54(b) judgment must finally dispose of a claim).
3’ Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
to dismiss is granted. Appeals 2009-1397, ~1398 are (1) The motion
dismissed.
(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
FOR THE COURT
SEP - 1 2009 /s! Jan Horbaly
Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
FILE
ce: Robert Bowick, Esq. US.T HCEO eURTa OF res ron
Timothy G. Atkinson, Esq.
SEP - 1 2009
519
- - JAN HORBALY
- - 1 2009 CLERK
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: SEP