Federal Circuit decries ‘untimely’ LG patent verdict challenge
LG Electronics will have to wait to appeal a judgment that it infringed a video display patent, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled yesterday.
The Japanese electronics company sought an interlocutory appeal of the judgment handed down by the US District Court for the District of New Jersey at the Federal Circuit, but the patent owner Mondis moved to dismiss the appeal as “untimely”.
The district court jury found that LG wilfully infringed claims 14 and 15 of Mondis’ patent, US number 7,475,180 in April 2019, leading LG to file several post-trial motions for non-infringement and patent invalidity, and to request a new trial for the damages and wilfulness finding.
In September 2019, the court denied the motions regarding infringement, invalidity, and wilfulness but later ordered a further briefing on the damages in April 2020.
LG then filed a notice of the interlocutory appeal with the Federal Circuit in May 2020 to challenge the district court’s decision to deny the post-trial motions of infringement, invalidity and wilfulness.
The patent owner Mondis moved to dismiss this appeal, arguing that LG needed to file its appeals within 30 days of the September ruling.
LG contested that the 30-day deadline for the notice of the interlocutory appeal did not come into effect until after the April ruling, so its deadline was “timely”.
The Federal Circuit agreed with Mondis’ argument and said that it lacked the jurisdiction to further consider the matter.
Target of appeal
The first disagreement focused on what the interlocutory appeal was challenging. Mondis also argued that LG’s appeal is focused on matters related to the September ruling whereas LG argued that the underlying judgment being challenged was the Jury’s special verdict submitted before the September order. The Federal Circuit agreed with Mondis that the September order was the target of the appeal.
“No matter what judgment is being challenged, the date that matters under § 1292(c)(2) is the date at which the case became final except for an accounting,” Circuit Judge Helen Hughes said.
FRAP dispute
The next dispute focused on interpretations of Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP), which states that “the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion”.
According to LG, because the entry of the order disposing of the last remaining post-trial motion occurred in April, the 30-day timer for the appeal did not come into effect until April 22.
Hughes said: “We disagree… when FRAP 4(a) pertains to interlocutory appeals under § 1292(c)(2), the motions can only toll the time to appeal if they relate to the interlocutory judgment.
“To read the Rule to toll the interlocutory appeal period for motions unrelated to the interlocutory judgment would conflict with the statute.”
While LG’s filing was found to be untimely it will still have the opportunity to challenge the liability determinations of the court once damages are determined.
“LG has missed the statutory deadline and is untimely. We, therefore, dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,” the court concluded.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories
Latham hires ex-Skadden IP litigator
