Snellman v. Ricoh Co., Ltd.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1246,87-1246 |
| Citation | 5 USPQ2d 1341,836 F.2d 528 |
| Parties | Donald L. SNELLMAN d/b/a Norfin, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICOH COMPANY LTD., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Karen Wuest, of Metzger & Shadyac, Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiff-appellee. With her on the brief was John Lockie, of Metzger & Shadyac, Washington, D.C.
Gerald W. Griffin, of Cooper, Dunham, Clark, Griffin & Moran, New York City, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Preston Moore and Grant L. Kim, of Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, Cal. Of counsel were Arthur I. Neustadt and Richard D. Kelly, of Oblon, Fisher, Spivak, McClelland & Maier, Arlington, Va.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, SKELTON and BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judges.
Ricoh Company Ltd. (Ricoh) appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Ingram, S.J.) dismissing Ricoh's counterclaim that Donald L. Snellman d/b/a Norfin (Norfin) breached a contract, on the ground that Ricoh had not timely moved for new trial on its counterclaim or for judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict that Norfin was not in breach. No. C-82-6188-WAI (Feb. 18, 1987). We affirm.
In December 1979, Ricoh and Norfin entered a contract requiring Norfin to develop and manufacture collators for Ricoh photocopiers. Norfin promised its best efforts to timely develop the collators. Ricoh promised its best efforts to buy the collators on an estimated schedule of need. Norfin completed prototypes in June 1980, but refused to ship them until Ricoh agreed to certain contract modifications. When Ricoh declined, Norfin did not ship the prototypes. Ricoh terminated the contract in September 1980 and developed its own collator.
In November 1982, Norfin sued Ricoh, alleging that Ricoh's collator infringed Norfin's U.S. Patent No. 3,414,254. In December 1982, Norfin added a claim that Ricoh breached the contract. Ricoh counterclaimed, and Norfin denied, that Norfin breached the contract.
In a one-month jury trial on all claims in July and August, 1984, Norfin contended that it suspended its performance because it doubted Ricoh would perform, calling that doubt a reasonable ground for insecurity under Sec. 2-609 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.). After Norfin presented its evidence, Ricoh moved for directed verdict under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) on "the breach of contract issue." Before the jury retired, Ricoh renewed its motion "as to the contract issue and as to the patent issue, and at the same time ... for judgment in favor of [Ricoh] based now upon all of the evidence in the case." The district court denied the motion.
On August 3, 1984, the jury answered "special interrogatories" in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(a). The jury answered "Yes" to the question "Do you find that Ricoh breached the contract?" and awarded Norfin $2.9 million in contract damages. The jury found that Ricoh's collators infringed the patent, that infringement was Of primary importance on this appeal, the jury answered "No" to the question "Do you find that Norfin breached the contract?"
not willful, and that Norfin should be awarded $12 million as a reasonable royalty.
On August 8, 1984, the clerk entered this judgment: 1
This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, Honorable William A. Ingram, United States District Judge, presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and the jury having duly rendered its verdict,
It is Ordered and Adjudged, that Norfin be awarded the sum of Twelve Million Dollars, as a reasonable royalty, for the infringement of the Snellman '254 patent.
It is Further Ordered and Adjudged, that Norfin be awarded the sum of Two Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars, for the breach of contract.
It is Further Ordered and Adjudged, that the counterclaim of Ricoh, is dismissed.
On August 13, 1984, Ricoh moved for "a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict in favor of Defendant Ricoh with respect to [Norfin's] Causes of Action for Breach of Contract and Patent Infringement." Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). In an accompanying memorandum Ricoh argued, Ricoh did not move for JNOV respecting its counterclaim that Norfin breached the contract. In its memorandum, Ricoh did not mention its counterclaim or the jury's answer that Norfin did not breach the contract.
With its JNOV motion, Ricoh moved under Rules 50(b), 59(b) "for a New Trial on all issues." In its accompanying memorandum, Ricoh stated:
[T]he jury verdict with respect to the Breach of Contract and Patent Infringement claims are clearly erroneous, and against the weight of the evidence.
These issues are addressed at length in Ricoh's Motion for Judgment N.O.V. filed concurrently herewith, and accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and attachments, which Defendant respectfully incorporates herein....
On January 18, 1985, the district court granted Ricoh's JNOV motion "on all issues with respect to [Norfin's] breach of contract claim," saying it was "of opinion that the evidence taken as a whole supports only one reasonable conclusion on the contract claim: [Ricoh] did not breach the agreement of December 13, 1979." The court denied JNOV respecting patent infringement.
In the same order, the district court granted a new trial on patent damages, stating, "The verdict of $12,000,000 constitutes a miscarriage of justice...." The court denied Ricoh's new trial motion on the infringement claim and did not mention Ricoh's counterclaim for breach of contract.
Norfin appealed from, and this court affirmed, the judgment entered NOV on its claim of breach by Ricoh. This court said, "We are satisfied that there was no substantial evidence on which a jury could have based a verdict of breach of contract by Ricoh." Snellman d/b/a Norfin v. Richon Co., No. 85-2183, slip op. at 1-2 (Fed.Cir. July 22, 1986) [802 F.2d 469 (table) ].
Ricoh did not appeal from that part of the judgment dismissing its counterclaim. 2
While Norfin's appeal was pending, proceedings in the patent damages retrial continued. On December 5, 1985, Ricoh moved for reconsideration of the order for new trial on patent damages, requesting that the measure of damages
include the compensation owed to Ricoh for its breach of contract counterclaim.
This motion is made on the ground that in its January 18, 1985 Order, the Court has concluded that Norfin failed to perform its contract with Ricoh and that this failure to perform was unexcused. The Court denied Norfin's claim for breach of contract on this ground. The same reasoning compels the conclusion that Ricoh is entitled to prevail on its breach of contract counterclaim. The only remaining issue is the amount of damages sustained by Ricoh as a result of Norfin's nonperformance. This issue should be included in the retrial of the damages phase of this case.
Ricoh asked the court to "vacat[e] any portion of the August 8, 1984 interlocutory judgment reflecting denial of Ricoh's counterclaim."
The district court denied Ricoh's motion for reconsideration on February 13, 1987 in an order stating:
The court has carefully reviewed Ricoh's motion for new trial. Although addressed to "all issues," the motion fails to specify that a new trial is sought on the contract counterclaim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1) ().
* * *
* * *
The [August 13, 1984] J.N.O.V. motion is addressed solely to the Norfin contract and patent infringement claims. No mention is made of the Ricoh contract counter-claim.
* * *
* * *
Ricoh failed to move for either a J.N.O.V. or new trial on its contract counter-claim within ten days of entry of judgment as required by Rules 50(b) and 59(b).
The court concluded:
The court recognizes that a logical conclusion to be drawn from the Federal Circuit affirmance of the J.N.O.V. order is that Norfin breached the contract. However, this court is bound by the time strictures of Rule 59. Absent a timely J.N.O.V./New Trial motion addressed to the contract counter-claim, this court is without jurisdiction to disturb that aspect of the judgment.
The court entered a second judgment dismissing Ricoh's counterclaim on February 18, 1987. 3
(1) Whether the district court erred in dismissing Ricoh's counterclaim.
(2) Whether this court may order a new trial on Ricoh's counterclaim.
OPINIONThis appeal is but another among those that seek only to rectify in this court the mistakes made by counsel in the trial court. That is not the purpose of the appellate process and is not the role of this court. See DMI, Inc. v. Deere & Co., 802 F.2d 421, 426, 231 USPQ 276, 279 (Fed.Cir.1986); Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp., 800 F.2d 1101, 1108, 231 USPQ 185, 190 (Fed.Cir.1986). Having failed to convince the jury that Norfin breached the contract Ricoh then failed to challenge the jury's finding by a proper motion for JNOV or for new trial under the applicable rules. 4
Ricoh advances two arguments: (1) Its motion for new trial on "all issues" effectively requested a new trial on its contract counterclaim; and (2) If Ricoh's August 13, 1984 motions did not address its counterclaim, its new trial motion nonetheless suspended finality of the judgment, and the district court retained jurisdiction to modify any part of it. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
As set forth in its February 13, 1987 order (quoted above) denying Ricoh's motion for reconsideration, the district court rejected the argument that a motion for new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd.
...does not satisfy the rule, supported by logic, that the formalities of post-trial motions be respected. Snellman v. Ricoh Co., 836 F.2d 528, 534, 5 USPQ2d 1341, 1346 (Fed.Cir.1987) (applying Ninth Circuit law in holding that motions for judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial must be made). Thu......
-
Biodex Corp. v. Loredan Biomedical, Inc.
...1479, 1479 (Fed.Cir.1989).3 Jurgens v. McKasy, 927 F.2d 1552, 1557, 18 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed.Cir.1991); Snellman v. Ricoh Co., 836 F.2d 528, 534, 5 USPQ2d 1341, 1346 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 3199, 105 L.Ed.2d 707 (1989); Devices for Medicine, Inc. v. Boehl, 822......
-
U.S. v. Alston
...to entertain an appeal seeking a new trial when no motion for a new trial was made to the district court. See Snellman v. Ricoh Co., Ltd., 836 F.2d 528, 534 (Fed.Cir.1987) (refusing to hear Ricoh's appeal for a new trial when "Ricoh has never, at any time, presented to the district court th......
-
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. International Medical Prosthetics Research Associates, Inc., s. 90-1489
...54(b) is not unique to patent law, regional circuit law--Ninth Circuit law in this case--should apply. Gore cites Snellman v. Ricoh, 836 F.2d 528, 5 USPQ2d 1341 (Fed.Cir.1987), which Because construction of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a matter not unique to patent law, we would ......