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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Lakim Industries, Inc. v. Linzer Products Corporation, No. 13-1225 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2013)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 13-1225
Decided
May 3, 2013
Judge
Lourie, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

LAKIM INDUSTRIES, INC., doing business as

Quali-Tech Manufacturing Company,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LINZER PRODUCTS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

2013-1225

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 12-CV-4976, Judge Margaret M. Morrow.

ON MOTION

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, AND MOORE, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Lakim Industries, Inc. moves without opposition to stay proceedings so that it may “seek from the District Court entry of a final judgment addressing the Defendant/Appellee’s counterclaims, an express determination2 LAKIM INDUSTRIES, INC. v. LINZER PRODUCTS CORPORATION 2 that there is no just reason for delay of an appeal of the Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment (District Court Docket No. 63) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), or other guidance as to the disposition of the matter below pursuant to the Judgment (District Court Docket No. 64) entered January 21, 2013.”

Lizner Products Corporation’s counterclaim of invalidity of the patent at issue has not been decided. As there is a pending claim, there is no final judgment and this appeal is premature. See Nystrom v. TREX Co., 339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“If a case is not fully adjudicated as to all claims for all parties and there is no express determination that there is no just reason for delay or express direction for entry of judgment as to fewer than all of the parties or claims, there is no final decision ... and therefore no jurisdiction.”). Pursuant to Pause Technology LLC v. TiVo Inc., 401 F.3d 1290, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2005), this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject to reinstatement under the same docket number without the payment of an additional fee if, within 60 days of the date of this order, the district court enters a final judgment or certification under Rule 54(b) and, within 30 days of entry of judgment or certification, Lakim files another notice of appeal.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject to reinstatement under the same docket number without the payment of an additional filing fee if, within 60 days of the date of this order, the district court either enters final judgment or enters a proper certification under Rule 54(b).

(2) All other motions are denied as moot. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

33 LAKIM INDUSTRIES, INC. V. LINZER PRODUCTS CORPORATION

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26

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

Lakim Industries, Inc. v. Linzer Products Corporation, No. 13-1225 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2013).

Record ID
CAFC-13-1225-20130503
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-13-1225-20130503

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.