Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
857 F.3d 1347
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Halo sued Pulse for patent infringement of three Halo patents; a jury found infringement and awarded $1.5 million in reasonable royalty damages.
- District court later ruled Pulse had not willfully infringed and entered judgment for $1.5 million on May 28, 2013; Halo did not then seek pre- or post-judgment interest.
- Halo appealed willfulness; this Court affirmed, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on enhanced damages and vacated/remanded, and this Court on remand vacated the unenhanced damages award for certain domestic deliveries and issued a remand mandate.
- On April 6, 2016 the district court ordered prejudgment interest (rate and compounding), post-judgment interest, and supplemental damages, but left the prejudgment interest amount and start date unresolved and directed the parties to submit calculations.
- Parties disputed the correct prejudgment-interest calculation and start date; Pulse appealed the district court’s April 6, 2016 order. The district court had not finally determined prejudgment interest when this Court considered Pulse’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Halo) | Defendant's Argument (Pulse) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the April 6, 2016 order is a final appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) | The order is not final because the court left prejudgment interest amount/start date unresolved | The May 28, 2013 judgment was final; prejudgment interest award is final enough to appeal | Held: Not final—no jurisdiction under § 1295(a)(1) because amount/start date of prejudgment interest was not determined |
| Whether § 1292(c)(2) (final except for accounting) provides jurisdiction | §1292(c)(2) does not apply because the prejudgment-interest order itself is non-final | The remand matters are merely an accounting and thus fall within §1292(c)(2) | Held: §1292(c)(2) inapplicable; appeal dismissed—order related to accounting is non-final |
| Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 required a separate judgment to create jurisdiction | No separate Rule 58 judgment does not change non-final nature of the order | A separate judgment was unnecessary; Halo’s submission is an untimely Rule 59(e) attempt | Held: Rule 58 issue does not salvage jurisdiction; core defect is non-finality |
| Whether Pulse preserved right to appeal prejudgment interest later | N/A (Halo argued dismissal conserves resources) | Pulse argued it would lose appeal rights if dismissed now | Held: Pulse preserved the right to later appeal a final prejudgment-interest award |
Key Cases Cited
- Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (defining final decision as one that leaves nothing to do but execute judgment)
- United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227 (a money judgment must determine or specify means for determining amount to be final)
- Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir.) (no final decision if claims remain for all parties)
- Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 719 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir.) (narrow reading of §1292(c)(2) and interlocutory patent appeals)
- Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Research v. Cochlear Corp., 841 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir.) (§1292(c)(2) does not permit review of non-final orders related to accounting)
- Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (explaining limits on appellate review before postjudgment motions for prejudgment interest are resolved)