950 F.3d 849
Fed. Cir.2020Background
- Serta Simmons sued Casper for infringement of three patents covering mattresses with channels and accused Casper products and manufacturing methods.
- While three summary-judgment motions by Casper were pending, the parties executed a written Settlement Agreement (June 18, 2018) requiring payment, cessation of manufacture/sales/marketing, mutual releases, and prompt filing of dismissal papers; they filed a joint notice of settlement the same day.
- Two days later the district court granted Casper’s summary judgment motions of non-infringement and directed entry of judgment without addressing the Settlement Agreement; Casper then refused to perform the settlement payment.
- Serta Simmons moved to enforce the Settlement Agreement and to vacate the summary judgment as void; the district court denied those motions and entered final judgment; Casper sought fees for alleged pre-settlement misconduct, which the district court denied.
- The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary-judgment and judgment orders, held the Settlement Agreement mooted the case, directed enforcement of the settlement on remand, and affirmed denial of pre-settlement fee awards under the settlement’s release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Serta Simmons) | Defendant's Argument (Casper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a binding settlement agreement that requires future performance moots the action | Yes; a binding settlement executed before judgment renders the case moot even if it requires future steps | No; settlement contains executory terms (payment, releases), so case remained live and judgment was proper | Binding settlement generally moots the action despite executory terms; vacated summary judgment and judgment |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement after issuing summary judgment | Court retained jurisdiction because enforcement motion was raised while proceedings were ongoing and before final dismissal | Kokkonen bars enforcement once the case is dismissed and the court did not expressly retain jurisdiction | A district court may enforce a settlement during ongoing proceedings; remand to enforce the Agreement |
| Whether the summary-judgment order nullified or frustrated the settlement agreement | No; summary judgment was improper and did not void the settlement | Yes; summary judgment rendered the settlement null and relieved Casper of obligations | No merit to Casper’s contention; summary judgment vacated and settlement enforceable |
| Whether Casper is entitled to fees/costs for pre-settlement conduct | Fees sought under §285, §1927, and inherent power for alleged improper litigation conduct | Settlement releases attorneys’ fees and requires parties to bear their own costs; Casper non-prevailing so §285 claim moot | §285 claim moot; fees under §1927 and inherent power barred by the Settlement Agreement release; district court denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Exigent Tech., Inc. v. Atrana Sols., Inc., 442 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (an enforceable settlement generally moots the action even if further steps are required)
- Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 866 F.2d 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (settlement moots an action)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (limits on ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlements after dismissal)
- Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590 (10th Cir. 1986) (settlement involving all parties and claims moots action despite executory terms)
- Meetings & Expositions, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F.2d 714 (2d Cir. 1974) (district court can summarily enforce a settlement reached during pending litigation)
- Voda v. Cordis Corp., 476 F.3d 887 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Federal Circuit law governs certain jurisdictional issues in patent cases)