Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Zoltar Satellite Alarm Systems, Inc. v. Snaptrack, Inc.
Citation: 122 F. App'x 495Docket: No. 04-1558, 04-1577
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; January 31, 2005; Federal Appellate Court
Snaptrack, Inc. and others have moved to dismiss Zoltar Satellite Alarm Systems, Inc.’s appeal, arguing it arises from a nonfinal order. The court interprets Snaptrack's submission as a motion to voluntarily dismiss its cross-appeal should Zoltar's appeal be dismissed. Zoltar opposes this motion, and Snaptrack has provided a surreply, which the court accepts as a motion for leave to file. Zoltar initiated a lawsuit against Snaptrack for patent infringement concerning three patents. Snaptrack responded with affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including invalidity and unenforceability. The jury found no infringement on two patents but did not reach a decision on the third. The district court granted Snaptrack’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) regarding the third patent's noninfringement but denied other JMOL motions, leaving some counterclaims unresolved. The judgment issued by the district court addressed only Zoltar’s infringement claims and did not include Snaptrack’s counterclaims. Snaptrack contends that because the district court's judgment was limited to Zoltar's claims and did not resolve Snaptrack's counterclaims, it is not a final decision, citing the precedent set in Nystrom v. TREX Co. The court agrees with Snaptrack's interpretation, thus determining that the appeal lacks jurisdiction due to the pending counterclaims. The court orders the following: 1) Snaptrack’s motion to dismiss the appeals is granted; 2) Zoltar’s motion for leave to file a surreply is granted; 3) each party will bear its own costs.