`Case: 23-2286 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 12/18/2023
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`FITBIT LLC,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2023-2286
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`District of Massachusetts in No. 1:19-cv-11586-FDS, Chief
`Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV.
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`Fitbit LLC moves to dismiss this appeal as premature.
`Philips North America, LLC (“Philips”) moves for an exten-
`sion of time to respond to Fitbit’s motion based on Philips’
`motion in the district court for entry of final judgment. The
`district court has since denied that motion without
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 433 Filed 12/18/23 Page 2 of 3
`Case: 23-2286 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 12/18/2023
`
`
`
` 2
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC v. FITBIT LLC
`
`prejudice, concluding that “it appears that [the court] is
`without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.” Dkt.
`No. 432.
`Philips sued Fitbit for patent infringement of U.S. Pa-
`tent Nos. 6,013,007 (the “’007 patent”); 7,088,233 (the “’233
`patent”); and 8,277,377 (the “’377 patent”). The district
`court concluded that the asserted claims in the ’007 patent
`were indefinite, Dkt. No. 212, and the asserted claims of
`the ’377 patent were invalid, Dkt. No. 401. The district
`court stayed proceedings as to the ’233 patent based on the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)’s finding that the
`claims were unpatentable. Dkt. No. 386. This court has
`since affirmed the PTAB’s decision, Philips N. Am., LLC v.
`Fitbit LLC, Nos. 2022-1223 et al., 2023 WL 2808489 (Fed.
`Cir. Apr. 6, 2023), but the district court has not yet issued
`an order lifting the stay or otherwise resolving the claims.
`In general, we only have jurisdiction after a “final deci-
`sion” from the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1);
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 809 F.3d 599, 604 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015). A “final decision” is one 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 (1945). “If a case is not fully adjudicated as to all
`claims for all parties and there is no express determination
`that there is no just reason for delay or express direction
`for entry of judgment as to fewer than all of the parties or
`claims, there is no ‘final decision’ under 28 U.S.C. §
`1295(a)(1) and therefore no jurisdiction.” Nystrom v.
`TREX Co., Inc., 339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Because the district court has not
`finally resolved all pending claims, there is no appealable
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 433 Filed 12/18/23 Page 3 of 3
`Case: 23-2286 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 12/18/2023
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC v. FITBIT LLC
`
` 3
`
`
`
`final decision. See PureWick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC,
`Appeal No. 23-1868, ECF No. 13 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2023).*
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) Fitbit’s motion is granted, and the appeal is dis-
`missed.
`(2) All other pending motions are denied.
`(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`December 18, 2023
` Date
`
`
`
`
`
`cc: United States District Court for the District of Massa-
`chusetts
`ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 18, 2023
`
`
`* We acknowledge that Philips has not yet responded
`to Fitbit’s motion to dismiss, but Philips has sought exten-
`sions to respond to this motion while seeking entry of final
`judgment before the district court. Given our disposition of
`this appeal, the district court has jurisdiction to review any
`renewed motion for entry of final judgment.
`
`
`
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
