Nisus Corp. v. Perma-Chink Systems, Inc., 2006-1592.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Writing for the Court: Bryson
• Citation: 497 F.3d 1316
• Parties: NISUS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. PERMA-CHINK SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, v. Michael H. Teschner, Movant-Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 2006-1592.,No. 2007-1142.,2006-1592.,2007-1142.
• Decision Date: 13 August 2007

497 F.3d 1316 NISUS CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
PERMA-CHINK SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
v.
Michael H. Teschner, Movant-Appellant. No. 2006-1592. No. 2007-1142. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. August 13, 2007.

[497 F.3d 1317]

Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P, of Washington, DC, argued for movant-appellant. With him on the brief

[497 F.3d 1318]

were Paul W. Browning, of Washington, DC, and Michael J. McCabe, II, of Atlanta, Georgia.

Before RADER, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

Michael Teschner appeals from a district court order that he characterizes as "adjudging [him] guilty of inequitable conduct" in the prosecution of a patent application. He also appeals from an order denying his motion to intervene in the underlying infringement action between plaintiff Nisus Corporation and defendant Perma-Chink Systems, Inc. We dismiss the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As to the second appeal, we affirm.

I

In the underlying case, Nisus brought suit against Perma-Chink in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Nisus alleged that Perma-Chink had infringed Nisus's U.S. Patent No. 6,426,095 B2 ("the '095 patent"). Perma-Chink asserted the affirmative defense that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Perma-Chink alleged that the attorneys who prosecuted the patent—Mr. Teschner and Mr. Allan Altera—engaged in inequitable conduct when they failed to disclose to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office the existence of an earlier lawsuit involving related patents as well as material documents that were at issue in that lawsuit. Following a bench trial, the district court held that the '095 patent was unenforceable because of inequitable conduct and entered judgment in Perma-Chink's favor. Nisus and Perma-Chink subsequently settled all aspects of the litigation between them and have disclaimed any interest in appealing from the judgment.

After the district court entered its judgment, Mr. Teschner filed a motion to intervene in the litigation and a motion to amend and reconsider the judgment. In his submissions to the district court, Mr. Teschner alleged that the district court erred in finding that he engaged in inequitable conduct. Mr. Teschner pointed out that although he served as Nisus's patent counsel in connection with the application that matured into the '095 patent, Mr. Altera replaced him in that capacity early in the prosecution. Mr. Teschner represented that he turned over to Mr. Altera all the relevant materials in his possession at the time of the transition between the two counsel. Because the time for submitting pertinent materials to the patent examiner had not expired at the time of the transition, Mr. Teschner argued that the document turnover fulfilled his duty of disclosure and that the district court was therefore in error in characterizing his behavior in the course of the prosecution as constituting inequitable conduct.

The district court denied the motion to intervene. Although the court amended its opinion in response to the motion to amend the judgment, it otherwise denied the motion. Mr. Teschner then noticed an appeal of both orders.

II

At the outset, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to hear the present appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). We resolve questions as to our jurisdiction by applying the law of this circuit, not the regional circuit from which the case arose. Silicon Image, Inc. v.

497 F.3d 1319

Genesis Microchip, Inc., 395 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed.Cir.2005); H.R. Techs., Inc. v. Astechnologies, Inc., 275 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2002); Woodard v. Sage Prods., Inc., 818 F.2d 841, 844 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc).

Ordinarily, nonparties may not appeal from judgments or other actions of a district court. See Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304, 108 S.Ct. 586, 98 L.Ed.2d 629 (1988); Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 77, 108 S.Ct. 388, 98 L.Ed.2d 327 (1987); Gautreaux v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 475 F.3d 845, 850 (7th Cir.2007). That is true even if the nonparty asserts that the judgment, or some action taken by the court in reaching the judgment, has an adverse effect on him. Marino, 484 U.S. at 304, 108 S.Ct. 586.

As an exception to that general rule, a nonparty such as an attorney who is held in contempt or otherwise sanctioned by the court in the course of litigation may appeal from the order imposing sanctions, either immediately or as part of the final judgment in the underlying case. See U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 76, 108 S.Ct. 2268, 101 L.Ed.2d 69 (1988); Sanders Assocs., Inc. v. Summagraphics Corp., 2 F.3d 394, 395-98 (Fed.Cir.1993). The reasoning underlying this rule is that when a court imposes a sanction on an attorney, it is not adjudicating the legal rights of the parties appearing before it in the underlying case. Instead, the court is exercising its inherent power to regulate the proceedings before it. See Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-66, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980); see also Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 450, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911). Once that power to punish is exercised, the matter becomes personal to the sanctioned individual and is treated as a judgment against him. See Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 121-22, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686 (1906); cf. Doyle v. London Guar. & Accident Co., 204 U.S. 599, 604-05, 27 S.Ct. 313, 51 L.Ed. 641 (1907); Bessette v. W.B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324, 328-29, 24 S.Ct. 665, 48 L.Ed. 997 (1904).

Conversely, a court's power to punish is not exercised simply because the court, in the course of resolving the issues in the underlying case, criticizes the conduct of a nonparty. Critical comments, such as in an opinion of the court addressed to the issues in the underlying case, are not directed at and do not alter the legal rights of the nonparty. We recognize that critical comments by a court may adversely affect a third party's reputation. But the fact that a statement made by a court may have incidental effects on the reputations of nonparties does not convert the court's statement into a decision from which anyone who is criticized by the court may pursue an appeal.

It is not always easy to determine whether a court's criticism of an attorney should be regarded as a sanction in a collateral proceeding, and there is some disagreement among the courts of appeals as to the circumstances in which an appeal from a court's criticism of an attorney is permitted. The Seventh Circuit permits such appeals only if the court has imposed a formal sanction against the attorney carrying a monetary penalty. See Seymour v. Hug, 485 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir.2007) ("[A]n attorney can bring an appeal on her own behalf when challenging a district court decision imposing monetary sanctions on the attorney, but this rule does not allow an appeal of otherwise critical

497 F.3d 1320

comments by the district court when no monetary sanctions have been imposed."). Other courts permit...