Max Impact, LLC and Chanelia Ltd. v. Sherwood Group, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MAX IMPACT, LLC AND CHANELIA LTD.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SHERWOOD GROUP, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2013-1120
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in No. 09-CV-0902, Judge
Lawrence M. McKenna.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before RADER, Chief Judge, D YK and WALLACH , Circuit
Judges.
RADER , Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Sherwood Group, Inc. moves to dismiss this appeal as
premature. Max Impact, LLC and Chanelia, Ltd. oppose.
Sherwood replies.
Case: 13-1120 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 04/26/2013

-- 1 of 4 --

MAX IMPACT, LLC v. SHERWOOD GROUP, INC. 2
Max Impact filed a complaint against Sherwood alleg-
ing, inter alia, patent infringement. Sherwood filed a
motion to dismiss Max Impact’s patent infringement
claim for relief based upon a lack of standing. A magis-
trate judge issued a Report and Recommendation stating
that the motion to dismiss the patent infringement claim
should be granted.
Over Max Impact’s objection, the district court adopt-
ed the Report and Recommendation and directed judg-
ment to be entered dismissing Max Impact’s patent
infringement claim. The dismissal order stated, in rele-
vant part, “ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
That for the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum
and Order . . ., the Court accepts [the magistrate judge’s]
decision; [Sherwood] may have judgment dismissing the
first claim of the amended complaint.”
Max Impact filed a notice of appeal to this court.
Sherwood argues that the district court’s order and judg-
ment dismissing the patent infringement claim are not
immediately appealable because claims for relief remain
pending in the case and the judgment was not certified
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Max Impact
responds, arguing that the district court’s judgment
makes clear that it intended the judgment to be final and
appealable.
We determine whether this court has jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) by applying Federal Circuit
law. Silicon Image, Inc. v. Genesis MicrochipInc., 395
F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Nystrom v. Trex
Company, Inc., 339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
We have explained that “in order for a party to appeal
from a judgment, that judgment must be final.” Id. The
Supreme Court has defined a final judgment as a decision
by the district court that “ends the litigation on the merits
and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the
judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233
Case: 13-1120 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 04/26/2013

-- 2 of 4 --

MAX IMPACT, LLC v. SHERWOOD GROUP, INC. 3
(1945); see also Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S.
463, 467 (1978).
Rule 54(b) provides an exception to this rule in a very
specific context:
When an action presents more than one
claim for relief . . . the court may direct entry
of a final judgment as to one or more, but
fewer than all, claims . . . only if the court ex-
pressly determines that there is no just reason
for delay. Otherwise, any order or other deci-
sion, however designated, that adjudicates
fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does
not end the action as to any of the claims or
parties . . . .
Rule 54(b) (emphasis added).
We have stated that
Absent the full adjudication of all claims for
all parties, the dismissal of any unresolved
claims, or an express determination that
there is no just reason for delay and an ex-
press direction for entry of judgment as to
fewer than all of the parties or claims under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), there can be no “final
decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Silicon Image, 395 F.3d at 1362 (citing Nystrom, 339 F.3d
at 1350).
Here, the district court has not certified a judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Nor has it provided “an
express determination that there is no just reason for
Case: 13-1120 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 04/26/2013

-- 3 of 4 --

MAX IMPACT, LLC v. SHERWOOD GROUP, INC. 4
delay.” Additionally, nine counts remain pending before
the district court, including three declaratory judgment
counterclaims asserted by Sherwood.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
Sherwood’s motion to dismiss is granted.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk
s25
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: April 26, 2013
Case: 13-1120 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 04/26/2013

-- 4 of 4 --