SPREAD SPECTRUM SCREENING LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co.
657 F.3d 1349
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- S3 sued Kodak and Kodak Customers in the N.D. Illinois for infringement of the '623 patent.
- District court granted Kodak's motion to sever, stay the Kodak Customer case, and transfer the Kodak case to the W.D.N.Y.
- S3 appeals only from the stay portion of the order.
- The '623 patent covers spread-spectrum digital screening masks and related methods/systems.
- Kodak allegedly infringes claims 1-9, 11, and 13-18; Kodak Customers allegedly use Kodak's Staccato software and may manufacture binary reproductions.
- The court held the stay is not a final appealable order and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the stay appealable as a final order under §1295(a)(1)? | S3 argues the stay is a final order. | Kodak argues the stay is not a final judgment. | No jurisdiction; the stay is not a final judgment under §1295. |
| Does the customer-suit exception give jurisdiction here? | S3 relies on the customer-suit exception to justify interlocutory review. | Kodak contends the exception does not apply on these facts. | No jurisdiction under the customer-suit exception. |
| Does §1292(a)(1) authorize interlocutory review because the stay functions as an injunction? | S3 treats the stay as effectively an injunction barring suit. | Stay is not an injunction; review under §1292(a)(1) is inappropriate. | No jurisdiction under §1292(a)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (stay appealability when effectively out of federal court)
- Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340 (Fed.Cir.1983) (stay not protracted or indefinite; not out of court)
- Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal Lite, Inc., 159 F.3d 1337 (Fed.Cir.1998) (appealability when stay may foreclose priority issues)
- Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 (1964) (finality exception narrowly limited; unique facts)
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978) (limits Gillespie framework; not broad)
- Fairchild Republic Co. v. United States, 810 F.2d 1123 (Fed.Cir.1987) ( Gillespie exception rarely extended)
- Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp., 889 F.2d 1078 (Fed.Cir.1989) (customer-suit exception; jurisdictional nuance)
- Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 909 F.2d 1459 (Fed.Cir.1990) (describes scope of customer-suit exception)
- Pause Tech., LLC v. TiVo, Inc., 401 F.3d 1290 (Fed.Cir.2005) (jurisdictional principles on §1291/1295)