Dynatemp International, Inc., Fluorofusion Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Harold B.… v. RMS OF GEORGIA, LLC, dba Choice Refrigerants, R421A, LLC, KENNETH M. PONDER

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DYNATEMP INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
FLUOROFUSION SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC.,
HAROLD B. KIVLAN, IV, WILLIAM GRESHAM,
DAVID COUCHOT,
Plaintiffs-Respondents
v.
RMS OF GEORGIA, LLC, dba Choice Refrigerants,
R421A, LLC, KENNETH M. PONDER,
Defendants-Petitioners
______________________
2024-142
______________________
On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b) from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in No.
5:20-cv-00142-FL, Judge Louise Wood Flanagan.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before D YK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Case: 24-142 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2024

-- 1 of 2 --

DYNATEMP INTERNATIONAL , INC. v. RMS OF GEORGIA, LLC 2
RMS of Georgia, LLC, R421A, LLC, and Kenneth M.
Ponder (collectively, “RMS”) petition for permission to ap-
peal an order of the district court determining the scope of
waiver created by reliance on an advice-of-counsel defense.
The court certified the order for appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b). Dynatemp International, Inc., Fluorofu-
sion Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Harold B. Kivlan, IV, Wil-
liam Gresham, and David Couchot oppose the petition.
Under § 1292(b), a district court may certify that an or-
der that is not otherwise appealable is one involving a con-
trolling question of law as to which there is substantial
ground for difference of opinion and for which an immedi-
ate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termina-
tion of the litigation. Ultimately, this court must exercise
its own discretion in deciding whether to grant permission
to appeal an interlocutory order. See In re Convertible
Rowing Exerciser Pat. Litig., 903 F.2d 822, 822 (Fed. Cir.
1990). In this case, we conclude that an interlocutory ap-
peal under § 1292(b) is not appropriate.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition for permission to appeal is denied.
September 30, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-142 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 09/30/2024

-- 2 of 2 --