`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`POWER-PACKER NORTH AMERICA, INC., dba
`GITS Manufacturing Co.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`G.W. LISK COMPANY, INC.,
`Cross-Appellant
`______________________
`
`2019-1900, -1964
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-
`02034.
`
`______________________
`
`Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
`BRYSON, Circuit Judge.
`O R D E R
` Power-Packer North America, Inc., d/b/a GITS Manu-
`facturing Co., responds to this court’s show cause order.
`G.W. Lisk Company, Inc. did not respond.
`
`Before the parties filed their notices of appeal and
`cross-appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s fi-
`nal written decision in this case, G.W. Lisk filed a timely
`request for rehearing, which remains pending before the
`
`IPR2017-02034
`Ex. 3001
`
`
`
`Case: 19-1900 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2019
`
`2
`
`POWER-PACKER NORTH AMERICA v. G.W. LISK COMPANY, INC.
`
`Board. The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s
`“Notice of Non-Filing of Certified List” states that due to
`the rehearing request, these appeals are premature, and
`the PTO retains jurisdiction over the case.
`We agree. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A), this court
`has “exclusive jurisdiction . . . of an appeal from a decision
`of . . . the [Board] with respect to [an] . . . inter partes re-
`view under title 35.” “‘We have held that § 1295(a)(4)
`should be read to incorporate a finality requirement.’” In
`re Arunachalam, 824 F.3d 987, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quot-
`ing Loughlin v. Ling, 684 F.3d 1289, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`It is well settled, as a general matter, that “[t]he timely fil-
`ing of a motion to reconsider renders the underlying order
`nonfinal for purposes of judicial review.” Stone v. INS, 514
`U.S. 386, 392 (1995). Consequently, we do not currently
`have jurisdiction. The parties may appeal the Board’s final
`written decision by filing a timely notice of appeal after the
`Board renders its decision on the rehearing request. See
`37 C.F.R. § 90.3(b)(1) (“A timely request for rehearing will
`reset the time for appeal or civil action to no later than
`sixty-three (63) days after action on the request.”).
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The stay of the briefing schedule is lifted.
`(2) The appeals are dismissed.
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`FOR THE COURT
`
`July 18, 2019
` Date
`
`s32
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`