Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. and C.R. Bard Inc. moved to dismiss an appeal filed by W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., arguing that the Federal Circuit lacked jurisdiction due to the prematurity of the appeal. The underlying dispute involved a jury verdict finding Gore guilty of willfully infringing Bard's patent, leading to compensatory damages. Post-judgment, the district court granted Bard's motions for prejudgment interest and supplemental damages but denied a permanent injunction, instead authorizing a compulsory license for future infringement. Gore appealed, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) and asserting that the district court's judgment was final under the statute's 'accounting' exception, despite ongoing license agreement proceedings. The Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Bard, determining that the appeal was premature as the licensing proceedings were still unresolved, thereby granting Bard's motion to dismiss. Both parties were held responsible for their own costs, and Bard was directed to submit its brief for a related case within 30 days, with an updated case caption provided.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appeal Prematurity and Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Federal Circuit determined that an appeal was premature when related proceedings were still ongoing, specifically addressing the finality of a judgment when a compulsory license agreement was pending.
Reasoning: The Federal Circuit concluded that since the license proceedings were still pending, the appeal was indeed premature, citing precedent.
Post-Judgment Orders and Injunctive Reliefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court granted prejudgment interest and supplemental damages but denied a permanent injunction, opting for a compulsory license agreement instead.
Reasoning: On March 31, 2009, the district court granted Bard’s requests for prejudgment interest and supplemental damages but denied its motion for a permanent injunction against Gore, instead granting a compulsory license agreement for future infringement.
Scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) - Accounting Exceptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Gore's assertion to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) was contested due to the ongoing nature of license agreement proceedings, which did not fall under the 'accounting' exception as claimed.
Reasoning: Gore asserted its right to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2), claiming that the district court's judgment was final and the license agreement proceedings fell under the statute's 'accounting' exception.
Willful Patent Infringement and Remediessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case involved a jury finding of willful patent infringement, resulting in compensatory damages and post-judgment remedies including prejudgment interest and supplemental damages.
Reasoning: The appeal followed a jury verdict in which Gore was found to have willfully infringed Bard's patent, leading to compensatory damages awarded to Bard.