Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order in <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1812.OPINION.8-3-2021_1813480.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Mondis Technologies Ltd v. LG Electronics Inc.</em></a>, No. 20-1812 (Aug. 3, 2021), granting Mondis’s motion to dismiss LG’s interlocutory appeal as untimely.

contentpilot/introduction

In 2014, Mondis brought an action against LG alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,475,180 (“’180 patent”), which covered a display unit configured to receive video signals from an external video source. The jury returned a $45 million verdict in favor of Mondis, finding that the accused LG televisions infringed claims 14 and 15 of the ’180 patent, that the claims were valid, and that LG’s infringement was willful.

core/paragraph

Following the verdict, LG filed several post-trial motions including motions for (1) JMOL or a new trial on infringement, (2) JMOL or a new trial on validity, and (3) JMOL, a new trial, or a remittitur addressing damages and willfulness. Mondis filed a post-trial motion seeking enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and interest. On September 24, 2019, the district court denied LG’s motions regarding infringement, validity, and willfulness, and ordered further briefing on damages (“September Order”). On April 22, 2020 the district court granted LG’s motion for a new trial on damages. On May 8, 2020, LG filed an interlocutory appeal, challenging the district court’s denial of its other post-trial motions. Mondis moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit granted Mondis’s motion to dismiss, holding that LG’s interlocutory appeal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). The Court explained that, because it left only the damages-related motions outstanding, the September Order constituted a judgment that was final except for an accounting. Accordingly, the September Order started the clock on the thirty-day period for LG to file a notice of interlocutory appeal, and LG’s May 8, 2020, notice of appeal was untimely. In reaching this decision, the Court rejected LG’s argument that FRAP 4(a)(4) permits a party to file an appeal within thirty days of an order disposing of the last post-trial motion. The Court explained that FRAP 4(a)(4) applies to interlocutory appeals under § 1292(c)(2), but that it does not toll the appeal period for outstanding motions that are unrelated to the interlocutory judgment.

08_10_21 CAFC Dismisses Interlocutory Appeal as Untimely

CAFC Dismisses Interlocutory Appeal as Untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2107(A)

Related Professionals