Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Engel Industries, Inc. v. The Lockformer Company, Iowa Precision Industries, Inc. And Met-Coil Systems Corp.
Citation: 22 F.3d 1105Docket: 93-1418
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; April 12, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) prohibits the citation of certain nonprecedential opinions as precedent but allows for the assertion of issues such as claim preclusion and judicial estoppel based on nonprecedential decisions. In the case Engel Industries, Inc. v. The Lockformer Company, the defendants hold a patent for a specific flange configuration on sheet metal ducts. They required Engel Industries to accept a license to sell its pre-existing roll forming machines, which created flanges of a different design for which Engel had a pending patent application. After Engel's patent was granted, it sought declaratory judgments claiming the license was invalid, asserting non-infringement, arguing that the royalty structure on staple items was unlawful, and alleging breach of contract due to the defendants' failure to renegotiate royalties after a related judgment reduced the scope of their patent. The district court initially ruled that the defendants' patent was invalid for not disclosing the best mode, but this decision was reversed on appeal. Upon remand, Engel argued that the district court did not adequately address the additional issues it raised. The district court maintained its earlier ruling, stating that it resolved all issues and did not require further judgment. Engel's subsequent motion to amend the judgment was denied, leading to this appeal. The appellate court vacated the previous order and remanded the case, emphasizing that Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires courts to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court referenced a precedent indicating that failure to make necessary findings warrants remand. The plaintiff-appellant contends that the district court failed to provide adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding infringement, royalties, and breach, as mandated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), and asserts that a remand is warranted. The defendants-appellees argue that the plaintiff-appellant forfeited its right to a favorable ruling on these issues by not raising them in a prior appeal to the Federal Circuit. While the district court made findings on the issue of validity, it was not obligated to address the other three issues since the invalidity ruling was sufficient to grant judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellant. Thus, the appeal could only concern the validity issue, and the defendants-appellees did not provide authority indicating that the plaintiff-appellant needed to appeal the other issues to preserve them. Nevertheless, on remand, the court found that the district court erred in law by not addressing the three issues and failing to issue explicit findings and conclusions. The order from May 14, 1993, denying the plaintiff-appellant's motion to alter or amend the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for the district court to resolve the issues of infringement, royalties, and breach, ensuring compliance with Rule 52(a). The district court is also instructed to clarify any fully adjudicated issues and, if necessary, direct the Clerk to enter a final judgment. Each party will bear its own costs.