Gould v. Control Laser Corp.

Citation705 F.2d 1340
Decision Date27 April 1983
Docket NumberAppeal No. 83-794.
PartiesGordon GOULD, Refac International, Ltd., and Patlex Corporation, Appellants, v. CONTROL LASER CORPORATION and Holobeam Corporation, Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Steven D. Merryday, Tampa, Fla., for appellants.

Edward M. Posner, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees; Stewart Dalzell, Sarah M. Thompson, Philadelphia, Pa., and Robert W. Duckworth, Orlando, Fla., of counsel.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and MILLER and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

MARKEY, Chief Judge.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Appellees' Motion to Dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellants appealed from a February 3, 1983 order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida staying proceedings before it until conclusion of a reexamination by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) of appellants' U.S. Patent No. 4,053,845. Appellees have moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the order for stay is not a "final" decision and is not therefore reviewable by this court.

An appeal of a stay order, like a mandamus petition (the high standards for which the appellants cannot meet), seeks interference by an appellate court with management of proceedings entrusted to the district court. Congress, in limiting appeals to "final" decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as amended by Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, Pub.L. No. 97-164, § 124, 96 Stat. 25, 36 (1982) (Act), has sought to avoid such interference and the resultant "enfeebling" of judicial administration. Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 325, 60 S.Ct. 540, 541, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940). The same limitation applies to appeals to this court. 28 U.S.C. § 1295, added by § 127 of the Act. Stay orders should not ordinarily be viewed, therefore, as "final" and thus within the jurisdiction of an appellate court.

An exception has been recognized. A stay may be an appealable "final" decision, and thus within the jurisdiction of an appellate court, when it effectively puts the parties out of the district court, either permanently because it terminates the action as a practical matter, or, as some courts have held, for a protracted or indefinite period. See Hines v. D'Artois, 531 F.2d 726, 730 (5th Cir.1976). A court has noted that because district courts have broad discretionary powers to control their dockets, stays will not be vacated unless they are "immoderate or of an indefinite duration." See McKnight v. Blanchard, 667 F.2d 477, 479 (5th Cir.1982) (stay extending for seven years or longer is an abuse of discretion). The "effectively out of court" standard was applied by the Supreme Court in holding "final" a denial of a motion for impaneling of a three-judge court in Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 715, n. 2, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 1296, n. 2, 8 L.Ed.2d 794 (1962), and a grant of a stay pending resolution in state court of the sole issue before the federal court in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 927, 933-934, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). That standard will be applied in consideration of orders for stay appealed to this court.

The present stay is not for such a protracted or indefinite period as to render its issuance an abuse of discretion. "Reexamination proceedings ... including any appeal to the Board of Appeals, will be conducted with special dispatch...." 35 U.S.C. § 305 (Supp. V 1981). Assuming the PTO decision on reexamination is adverse to the patent holder and may therefore be appealed to this court, the stay would not be for a protracted or indefinite period of sufficient length to render its issuance a "final" decision.

Like Cone Memorial Hospital, appellants would appear to be effectively out of court with respect to claims canceled by the PTO. However, unlike the situation in Cone Memorial Hospital, stays to enable reexamination do not foreclose review on the merits by a federal court. District court and PTO decisions on the merits are both reviewable by this court.

The present stay has thus not terminated the action but has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
251 cases
  • Atari, Inc. v. JS&A Group, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • November 8, 1984
    ...--- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1601, 80 L.Ed.2d 131 (1984); In re Makari, 708 F.2d 709, 218 USPQ 193 (Fed.Cir.1983); Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 217 USPQ 985 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 343, 78 L.Ed.2d 310 (1983); United States v. John C. Grimberg, 702 F.2d......
  • EI DuPont de Nemours v. Phillips Petroleum
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • March 21, 1989
    ...economy, this Court has exercised its inherent discretion to proceed and not stay the remand proceedings. See Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1341 (Fed.Cir.), cert denied, 464 U.S. 935, 104 S.Ct. 343, 78 L.Ed.2d 310 (1983). Cf. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426 (Fed.C......
  • Bayer Ag v. Schein Pharmaceutical, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • February 9, 2001
    ...Bayer relies primarily on three cases in support of its argument for placing a heavier burden on the defendants. In Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340 (Fed.Cir.1983), the court considered whether an order from the district court staying an action pending completion of a reexaminati......
  • Fresenius United States, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • July 2, 2013
    ...“a necessary condition for such an action is the existence of [a] valid ... patent[ ].” Id. at 1340;see also Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1342 (Fed.Cir.1983) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the reexamination procedure is to eliminate trial of that issue (when the claim is can......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
5 books & journal articles
  • Behind the Scenes of the Trademark Modernization Act: An Interview with Stephen Lee
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 14-1, September 2021
    • September 1, 2021
    ...Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426–27 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1983); British Telecomms. , No. 18-366-WCB, slip op. at 10–20; Cywee , No. 2:17-cv-00140, slip op. at 7–20; Lund Motion Prods......
  • The Law of District Court Stays for USPTO Proceedings
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 14-1, September 2021
    • September 1, 2021
    ...Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426–27 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1983); British Telecomms. , No. 18-366-WCB, slip op. at 10–20; Cywee , No. 2:17-cv-00140, slip op. at 7–20; Lund Motion Prods......
  • Chapter §22.02 Inter Partes Review
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 22 Challenging Patents in the USPTO (AIA-Implemented Procedures)
    • Invalid date
    ...calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance."); Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that "[s]tay orders should not ordinarily be viewed, therefore, as "final" and thus within the jurisdiction o......
  • Chapter §22.04 Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 22 Challenging Patents in the USPTO (AIA-Implemented Procedures)
    • Invalid date
    ...calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance."); Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that "[s]tay orders should not ordinarily be viewed, therefore, as "final" and thus within the jurisdiction o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT