NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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. he United States District Court for the District of Colorado in Appeals from t
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.
atent infringement suit against Pason seeking compensatory Varco brought this p
e relief. Pason’s answer included, inter alia, both an damages and permanent injunctiv
claim of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. afÏrmative defense and a counter
equitable conduct issues and held a jury trial on The district court bifurcated the in
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.
he district court sua sponte entered an order issuing its final On April 30, 2009, t
nt claims pursuant to Rule 54(b). Although the inequitable judgment on the infringeme
ecided, the district court determined that there was no conduct defense had not been d
al judgment. Varco now moves to dismiss that appeal.
just reason to delay entry of fin
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
udgment as to fewer than all claims or parties only if of a final j
court expressly determines that there is no just reason for the
ay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however, del
d, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the designate
ghts and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end ri
e action as to any of the claims or parties and may be th revised at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
b) to apply, the judgment must be final with respect to one or In order for Rule 54(
not final for Rule 54(b) purposes unless it is “an ultimate more claims. A judgment is
m entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Sears, disposition of an individual clai
Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1992). When a judgment is certified Roebuck & Co. v.
(b), an appellate court must review the finality of the judgment de pursuant to Rule 54 novo to assure that it has jurisdiction. Id, at 437.
s improper for the district court to enter Rule 54(b) judgment because Here, it wa
uct defense is pending. Thus, the patent infringement claim was not the inequitable cond
W.L. Gore v. Int] Medical Prosthetics Research, 975 F.2d 858, 864 finally adjudicated. ed. Cir. 1992) (Rule 54(b) judgment must finally dispose of a claim).
(F
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