Majorette Toys (U.S.) Inc. v. Darda, Inc. U.S.A.
| Decision Date | 22 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-921,86-921 |
| Citation | 798 F.2d 1390,230 USPQ 541 |
| Parties | MAJORETTE TOYS (U.S.) INC., and Majorette S.A. France, Appellants, v. DARDA, INC. U.S.A., d/b/a Darda Toy Company, and Helmut Darda, Appellees. Appeal |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Stephen Rubin, Mitchell H. Stabbe, Holland & Knight, Washington, D.C., and Gary M. Carman, Holland & Knight, Miami, Fla., for appellants.
Mark P. Stone, Eric Y. Munson, Stamford, Conn., Jack E. Dominik, Dominik & Saccocio, Miami, Fla., for appellees.
Before DAVIS, BALDWIN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
On January 13, 1986, 627 F.Supp. 1121, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a judgment which: (1) declared the patents in suit valid and enforceable; (2) entitled the patentee and exclusive licensee to injunctive relief and the patentee to monetary relief in the amount of $9,622.86; (3) awarded plaintiffs attorney fees and costs in an amount to be determined at a later date; and (4) rejected defendants' antitrust counterclaim. Defendants appealed the judgment.
Plaintiffs, appellees here, have moved to dismiss and/or remand the appeal on the ground that, because the judgment has not quantified attorney fees and costs, it is neither a final decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1295(a) nor an appealable interlocutory decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292.
In opposition to the motion, appellants quote this language from White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982): "the collateral character of the fee issue establishes that an outstanding fee question does not bar recognition of a merits judgment as 'final' and 'appealable.' " Appellees, on the other hand, urge that White has been interpreted as not applying when the award of attorney fees, as said to be true here, is "integral to the merits of the action" or is part of the compensation for the injury giving rise to the action.
The focus of the parties' arguments is misplaced. White was not a patent case. In the patent area, we are guided by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(c)(2), which gives this Court exclusive jurisdiction "of an appeal from a judgment in a civil action for patent infringement which would otherwise be appealable ... and is final except for an accounting." That exception to the general rule against appealing interlocutory orders was enacted in response to the expense frequently involved in accounting in patent suits and the losses incurred when recoveries were ultimately denied by reversal of decrees on the merits. McCullough v. Kammerer Corp., 331 U.S. 96, 67 S.Ct. 1165, 91 L.Ed. 1365 (1947); 9 Moore's Federal Practice p 110.19 at 220 (2d Ed.1981).
Appellees argue that, because the district court determined damages as part of the judgment, "there will be no accounting procedure" and, consequently, Sec. 1292(c) is inapplicable. We disagree. If an appeal in a patent case can come to this Court under Sec. 1292(c)(2) after validity and infringement are determined but prior to determining damages, it makes no sense not to allow an appeal after validity, infringement, and damages are ascertained, and an award of attorney fees granted, even though the exact amount of attorney fees (and costs) has not been precisely ascertained. If any of the trial court's holdings of validity, enforceability, or infringement is overturned, there will, in all likelihood, be no occasion to quantify, let alone award, attorney fees. Similarly, such quantification will be irrelevant if on appeal this Court determines that it was an abuse of discretion to award attorney fees at all. Accordingly, allowing the present appeal will prevent loss of time and expense,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.
...but we provided no discussion of jurisdiction and did not even cite to § 1292(c)(2). 750 F.2d at 1558. In Majorette Toys (U.S.) Inc. v. Darda, Inc. U.S.A., 798 F.2d 1390 (Fed.Cir.1986), an interlocutory appeal was permitted pending a determination of attorney fees, but the court cited no ca......
-
Orenshteyn v. Citrix Sys., Inc.
...in relying on Akron Polymer Container Corp. v. Exxel Container, Inc., 148 F.3d 1380 (Fed.Cir.1998) , and Majorette Toys (U.S.), Inc. v. Darda, Inc., 798 F.2d 1390 (Fed.Cir.1986). In Akron , this court appeared to exercise jurisdiction over an unquantified award of attorney fees with a fin......
-
EI Du Pont de Nemours v. Phillips Petroleum
...and the losses incurred when recoveries were ultimately denied by reversal of decrees on the merits." Majorette Toys (U.S.), Inc. v. Darda, Inc. U.S.A., 798 F.2d 1390, 1391 (Fed.Cir.1986). Speaking of the predecessor statute to § 1292(c)(2), the Supreme Court said that its was to make sure ......
-
Elbit Sys. Land & C4i Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC
...for jurisdiction, Hughes disputes none of the foregoing, but relies entirely on what this court said in Majorette Toys (U.S.) Inc. v. Darda, Inc. U.S.A , 798 F.2d 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1986). There, all merits issues in the case had been decided by the district court, which also found fees to be ......
-
Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction Under Swint Does Not Generally Extend To Appeals Of Unquantified Sanctions
...by yet a third panel of [the Federal Circuit]." Newman Dissent at 1-2. Judge Newman found Majorette Toys (U.S.), Inc. v. Darda, Inc., 798 F.2d 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1986), controlling, where the Federal Circuit reasoned that the appeal of the final judgment, together with appeal of the accompanyi......