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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Driscoll'S, Inc. v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC, No. 25-1747 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2025)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 25-1747
Decided
June 23, 2025
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

DRISCOLL’S, INC., DRISCOLL’S OF EUROPE B.V.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

CALIFORNIA BERRY CULTIVARS, LLC, DOUGLAS

SHAW,

Defendants-Appellees

2025-1747

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in No. 2:19-cv-00493-TLNCKD, Judge Troy L. Nunley.

ON MOTION

Before REYNA, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Driscoll’s, Inc. and Driscoll’s of Europe B.V. (collectively, “Driscoll’s”) move to deactivate this appeal pending the district court’s entry of final judgment. ECF No. 5. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

22 DRISCOLL’S, INC. v. CALIFORNIA BERRY CULTIVARS, LLC

Driscoll’s sued California Berry Cultivars, LLC and Douglas Shaw (collectively, “CBC”) for infringement of three patents. CBC filed counterclaims related to non-infringement and invalidity. The district court granted CBC’s motion for summary judgment as to Driscoll’s claims and entered judgment to that effect. There is no dispute that CBC’s invalidity counterclaims remain pending, and the district court has ordered briefing on dispositive motions. ECF No. 5 at 2.

In general, this court only has jurisdiction over a “final decision” of a district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). Because CBC’s invalidity counterclaims remain unadjudicated, there has been no final judgment. See Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc., 339 F.3d 1347, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[A] judgment that does not dispose of pending counterclaims is not a final judgment.” (citation omitted)).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is denied. 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 Driscoll’s files a notice of appeal within 60 days of an appealable order.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

(3) The mandate shall issue forthwith.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

June 23, 2025

Date

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

Driscoll'S, Inc. v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC, No. 25-1747 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2025).

Record ID
CAFC-25-1747-20250623
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1747-20250623

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.