Gould v. Control Laser Corp.

Citation213 USPQ 1120,650 F.2d 617
Decision Date13 July 1981
Docket NumberNo. 79-3405,79-3405
PartiesGordon GOULD and Refac International, Limited, Plaintiffs, Gordon Gould, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTROL LASER CORP., and Holobeam Laser Corp., Defendants-Appellees. . Unit B
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Lerner, David, Littenberg & Samuel, William L. Mentlik, argued, Richard I. Samuel, Westfield, N. J., for plaintiff-appellant.

Duckworth, Hobby, Allen & Pettis, Robert W. Duckworth, Orlando, Fla., Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Stewart Dalzell, argued, Edward M. Posner, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before JONES, FAY and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

HENDERSON, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from two district court orders granting the defendants summary judgment on two of the three counts of the complaint. The other count remains for trial in the district court, thereby foreclosing our jurisdiction to review the partial summary judgments themselves. However, the complaint also sought injunctive relief. Arguably, the orders granting summary judgment effectively denied the prayer for an injunction. To the extent that we have jurisdiction to review this constructive denial of injunctive relief, we affirm.

Our limited review renders unnecessary an extended discussion of the substantive issues. Appellate jurisdiction is the most difficult aspect of this appeal, making a detailed examination of the pleading sequence necessary.

On October 19, 1977, Gordon Gould sued Control Laser Corporation (Control), claiming patent infringement. Control denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity and non-infringement. Gould then sought by amendment to add Holobeam Laser Corporation (Holobeam), a wholly owned subsidiary of Control, as a defendant and to include claims of group boycott and intentional interference with patent rights. The motion to amend was denied on July 31, 1978.

On July 25, 1978, Gould filed the present action against Control and Holobeam. He charged both with patent infringement, antitrust conspiracy and tortious interference with his patent rights. On November 27, 1978, the district court granted the defendants' motion to join Gould's licensing agent, Refac International, Ltd. (Refac), as an indispensable party plaintiff, and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the conspiracy count. Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 462 F.Supp. 685 (M.D.Fla.1978). 1 On the same day the two pending cases were consolidated by order of the court.

On December 20, 1978, Gould and Refac filed another amended complaint, basically restating the three causes of action patent infringement, antitrust conspiracy and tortious interference with patent rights but adding Refac as a plaintiff. This second amended complaint also contained requests for preliminary and permanent injunctions. 2 The defendants immediately moved to strike the conspiracy count as it related to Gould, and for summary judgment thereon against Refac. On February 16, 1979, the defendants moved for summary judgment on count three. The plaintiffs opposed these motions and sought reconsideration of the order granting summary judgment against Gould on the conspiracy count. On May 14, 1979, the district court denied the defendants' motion to strike, but again granted summary judgment, this time against both plaintiffs, on the conspiracy count, reaffirming and incorporating its order of November 27, 1978. On September 10, 1979, the court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the interference count.

As the case now stands the complaint contains three counts. Count one charges that Control and Holobeam infringed Gould's patent, count two alleges that the defendants and others agreed to boycott the patent in violation of the antitrust laws, and count three complains that the defendants tortiously interferred with Gould's licensing efforts. 3 The defendants admit that they and others considered establishing a fund to finance the defense of infringement actions instituted by Gould, but deny that they conspired to boycott the patent or attempted to induce others to refuse licensing.

On October 3, 1979, Gould 4 appealed "from that part of the decision of (the district court entered) on May 14, 1979 granting the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Two of the Second Amended Complaint, and from the decision of (the district court) entered on September 10, 1979 granting the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count III of the Second Amended Complaint."

Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. We have only the authority endowed by the Constitution and that conferred by Congress. Because we may not proceed without requisite jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon federal courts trial and appellate to constantly examine the basis of jurisdiction, doing so on our own motion if necessary. Accordingly, before addressing the merits of the appeal we must determine whether the order in question is appealable. To be appealable an order must either be final or fall into a specific class of interlocutory orders which are made appealable by statute or jurisprudential exception.

Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted).

Congress granted to the circuit courts jurisdiction over appeals from final district court judgments unless those decisions are appealable directly to the Supreme Court, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, and, generally, we are without authority to review district court orders until they become final. Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides that an order adjudicating fewer than all the claims in a multi-claim action is not final unless the district court makes "an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for the entry of judgment." The plaintiffs never sought a Rule 54(b) determination and certification from the district court, so consequently the orders are not appealable final judgments. 5

As Gould admits, the only possible source of jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a), which confers appellate authority in us

of appeals from: (1) interlocutory orders of the district courts granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.

Most summary judgments involve considerations not at all relevant to the propriety of injunctive relief, and thus the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not the denial of the movant's request for an injunction and is not appealable as such. Switzerland Cheese Assoc. v. E. Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L.Ed.2d 23 (1966). On the other hand, an adverse summary judgment necessarily rejects equitable protection. Compare Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 437 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2451, 57 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978) with General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 U.S. 430, 53 S.Ct. 202, 77 L.Ed. 408 (1932). Our first inquiry then is whether an order granting a defendant's motion for summary judgment as to one of several counts is appealable as an "interlocutory order( ) refusing (an) injunction ( )."

The appellate briefs focus exclusively on the correctness of the ruling on the motions for summary judgment, with no mention of permanent or preliminary injunctions, much less the standards under which they are granted or reviewed. The thrust of Gould's argument is that, contrary to the conclusion of the district court, the complaint and affidavits reveal the existence of material issues of facts. 6 In answer to a question posed during oral argument before us, counsel for Gould conceded that we only have jurisdiction to review the denial of injunctive relief, and that our consideration of the merits of the summary judgments should be in the context of reviewing that decision. Nevertheless his presentation was wholly devoted to demonstrating the existence of material issues of fact, never suggesting that his client was entitled to an injunction.

Although the second amended complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctions, the plaintiffs never pressed the matter in the district court, nor did they call it to our attention. This is not a case where the district court refused to rule, cf. United States v. Lynd, 301 F.2d 818, 822-23 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 893, 83 S.Ct. 187, 9 L.Ed.2d 125 (1962), and Gould does not seek our aid in procuring an injunction, cf. Watson v. Comm'rs Court of Harrison County, 616 F.2d 105, 107 (5th Cir. 1980); McCoy v. Louisiana State Bd. of Education, 332 F.2d 915, 917 (5th Cir. 1964); Lynd. Nor is this a case where the movant more precisely the constructive movant claims that he will be irreparably injured if an injunction does not issue. The appellant only poses the question of whether the summary judgments were improper. This issue could have been placed before us simply by following the procedures outlined in Rule 54(b). Gould never applied for Rule 54 certification, however.

There has been no showing made that these orders are ripe for appellate review. In any case, Gould has not demonstrated that he is entitled to injunctive relief. 7 Consequently, we dismiss in part and affirm the orders to the extent that they are appealable. Cf. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Erickson's, Inc., 396 F.2d 134, 136 (5th Cir. 1968) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction, but noting error in partial summary judgment).

The Supreme Court recently held that a district court's refusal to enter a consent decree containing injunctive provisions was appealable under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a)(1). Carson v. American Brands, Inc., -- U.S. --, 101 S.Ct. 993, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). The Court was careful to note that an order is not appealable merely because it has the "practical effect" of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Woodard v. Sage Products, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 4 May 1987
    ...742 F.2d 392, 393-94 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. RMI Co., 661 F.2d 279, 281-82 (3d Cir.1981); Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 650 F.2d 617, 621, 213 USPQ 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.1981). Woodard urges us to disregard the broad statements in Carson, which are reiterated in Stringfellow, as dict......
  • Donovan v. Robbins, s. 84-1287
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 3 January 1985
    ...v. City of New Orleans, 694 F.2d 987, 989 (5th Cir.1982), on rehearing, 729 F.2d 1554 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc); Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 650 F.2d 617, 621 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. City of Alexandria, 614 F.2d 1358, 1361 n. 5 (5th Cir.1980); Plummer v. Chemical Bank, 668 F.2d 65......
  • Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc., 80-3764
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 22 April 1982
    ...that otherwise unappealable orders may be reviewed when necessary to review a denial of injunctive relief. Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 650 F.2d 617, 621, n.7 (5th Cir. 1981). The Supreme Court has gone even further in authorizing review of otherwise unappealable orders in a case properly ......
  • Tax Analysts v. I.R.S., 96-2285 (CKK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 26 March 2001
    ...all issues in a complex Title VII case resolved by district court; appeal under § 1292(a)(1) permissible); but see Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 650 F.2d 617 (5th Cir.1981) (where order denying injunctive relief involved only two of three issues in complaint, no appeal on the merits 6. Loom......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table Of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Counterattack in Intellectual Property Litigation Handbook
    • 1 January 2010
    ...Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 462 F. Supp. 685 (M.D. Fla. 1978), aff’d in part & appeal dismissed in part , Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 650 F.2d 617 (5th Cir. 1981), 137. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1996), 20, 42. Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 18......
  • Overview of Antitrust and Misuse Law in the Patent Context
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Counterattack in Intellectual Property Litigation Handbook
    • 1 January 2010
    ...451, 459 (3d Cir. 1966). 278. Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 462 F. Supp. 685 (M.D. Fla. 1978), aff’d in part & appeal dismissed in part , 650 F.2d 617 (5th Cir. 1981). 279. See, e.g. , Jones Knitting , 361 F.2d at 459–60; Lemelson v. Bendix Corp., 621 F.2d 617 (5th Cir. 1981). 280. Rodime P......

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