Imprenta Services, Inc., Mike Sanchez v. Nicholas Patrick Karll, Eco Packaging Solutions

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IMPRENTA SERVICES, INC., MIKE SANCHEZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
NICHOLAS PATRICK KARLL, ECO PACKAGING
SOLUTIONS,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2022-2122
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:20-cv-06177-GW-
PVC, Judge George H. Wu.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before T ARANTO, MAYER , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
T ARANTO, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Nicholas Patrick Karll and Eco Packaging Solutions
(collectively, “Eco”) move to dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. Imprenta Services, Inc. and Mike Sanchez
(collectively, “Imprenta”) oppose dismissal.
Case: 22-2122 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 01/30/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

IMPRENTA SERVICES, INC. v. KARLL 2
Imprenta filed this action in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California for declaratory
judgment of non-infringement of Eco’s patent, declaratory
judgment of inequitable conduct, and to correct inventor-
ship. Eco asserted a counterclaim for patent infringement
and state law counterclaims for breach of contract and
breach of warranty. Eco also sought to enjoin future patent
infringement by Imprenta.
The district court granted Eco’s motions for summary
judgment of correct inventorship, no inequitable conduct,
and willful patent infringement. The court also granted-
in-part Eco’s motion for sanctions. The court subsequently
entered an order setting the sanctions amount while defer-
ring a ruling on infringement damages and enhanced dam-
ages. Imprenta filed a notice of appeal seeking review of
those decisions, as well as orders on evidentiary objections
and claim constructions. ECF No. 1-2 at 2–3.
Our jurisdiction generally extends only to a “final deci-
sion of a district court,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), i.e., one that
“ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the
court to do but to execute the judgment,” Catlin v. United
States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). That is not the situation
here. The court decisions from which Imprenta attempts
to appeal did not end the litigation, as it is undisputed that,
among other things, the district court has not reached a fi-
nal decision on the state law claims. See Pandrol USA, LP
v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (“A judgment that does not dispose of pending coun-
terclaims is not a final judgment.” (citation omitted)).
Imprenta suggests that this matter is “final except for
an accounting” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c). But that
narrow exception to the final judgment rule does not apply
here, at least because Eco’s request for injunctive relief re-
garding patent infringement remains pending. See Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737 (1976) (no final deci-
sion when injunction request is outstanding); Johannsen v.
Case: 22-2122 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 01/30/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

IMPRENTA SERVICES, INC. v. KARLL 3
Pay Less Drug Stores Nw., Inc., 918 F.2d 160, 164 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (noting that district court ruling that did not adjudi-
cate motion for injunctive relief, inter alia, is not final ex-
cept for an accounting).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal
is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject, however, to re-
instatement under the same docket number without the
payment of an additional filing fee if, within 60 days of this
order, Imprenta appeals from the entry of a final judgment
appealable under either 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c) or § 1295(a)(1)
or from a judgment entered under Rule 54(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
January 30, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 30, 2023
Case: 22-2122 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 01/30/2023

-- 3 of 3 --