Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Office Depot, Inc. (No. 2017-2597, -2598, -2600, -2602, -2605, -2606, -2609, -2611, -2612, -2627, -2628, -2629, -2630, -2631, -2632, -2633, -2634, 2018-1006, 1/22/19) (Dyk, Taranto, Stoll)
Dyk, J. Dismissing appeal for lack of subject jurisdiction. Following adverse pretrial rulings, the patentee attempted to obtain an appealable decision by requesting the district court to enter judgment in favor of the defendant. The district court entered the requested judgment and the Court subsequently determined that the judgement was not final and therefore not appealable. “[We] conclude that [patentee] could still have proceeded to trial on its breach claim, and was required to do so to obtain a final decision on the merits that could be appealed. To be sure, the prospect of only a small damages recovery may have discouraged [patentee] from going to trial, but … the fact that continuing litigation could be economically imprudent does not create a ‘final decision.’ … Because the purported final judgment is ineffective, the district court must treat the case as though final judgment had never been entered. There are thus further steps remaining for the district court to take: it must determine whether [defendant] breached its license agreement with [patentee], and if so, it must determine the damages (actual or nominal) to which [patentee] is entitled. In short, the case must continue until there is a final disposition of the breach claim, at which point there can be an appeal.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.