`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 16-116-RGA
`
`F ACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER
`
`Plaintiff asserted seven patents. (D .I. 1 ). I granted a defense motion and found that one
`
`of the seven patents - the '593 patent-- should be dismissed for lack of patentable subject matter.
`
`(D.I. 48).
`
`Plaintiff now wants me to enter a final judgment so Plaintiff can appeal the decision.
`
`Thus, under Rule 54(b ), I could direct entry of a final judgment on the relevant count if I
`
`"expressly determine[] that there is no just reason for delay." I agree with Defendant's argument
`
`that Plaintiffs "litigation approach is the definition of piecemeal." (D.1. 63, p.5). Plaintiff sued
`
`on seven patents. It loses on one-seventh of its case, and it wants to appeal. It says that there is
`
`no overlap between the claims of the '593 patent and the claims of the other six. I am not sure
`
`what Plaintiffs point is, as I assume that the '593 patent is asserted against the same products or
`
`methods as the other six. I do not see Plaintiff saying otherwise. Plaintiff says there is nothing to
`
`be gained by not allowing Plaintiff an appeal now, but that is not so. Most patent cases, like
`
`most other cases, settle. In all likelihood, if there is no appeal now, the Federal Circuit will never
`
`have to hear an appeal from this case. Piecemeal appeals tax the resources of the courts of
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 74 Filed 01/18/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1667
`
`appeals. To me, that is sufficient reason not to enter a Rule 54(b) judgment in this case.
`
`Plaintiffs motion (D.I. 58) is DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 11 day of January 2017.
`
`ict Judge
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
