Jepson, Inc. and Ko Shin Electric and Machinery Co., Ltd.,plaintiffs-appellants, v. Makita Usa, Inc., Makita Corporation of America and Makitaelectric Works, Ltd., Defendants-appellees, 988 F.2d 128 (Fed. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 988 F.2d 128 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Dec. 18, 1992

DISMISSED.

ON MOTION

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.


ORDER

Jepson, Inc. et al. move to stay this appeal, to consolidate this appeal with a future appeal, and to have the briefing schedule in the consolidated appeal begin to run from the date the future appeal is docketed. Makita USA, Inc. et al. move to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that it is premature, that it is not in the proper appellate court, and for Jepson's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of this court.

Aside from exceptions not pertinent here, a party may appeal only from a final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Jepson appealed from a district court's order that was labelled a final judgment. However, the order was the final disposition of Makita's counterclaims only and was not a final appealable judgment in the case. Therefore, this appeal is premature and must be dismissed.* 

Regarding Makita's claim that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal, Makita is mistaken. This court has jurisdiction to review all cases where the complaint is based on the federal patent laws. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988). Makita's request for dismissal based on Jepson's failure to comply with the court's procedural requirements is without merit.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Jepson's motion to stay this appeal, to consolidate this appeal with a future appeal, and to revise the briefing schedule is denied.

(2) Makita's motion to dismiss this appeal as premature is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

 *

Of course, Jepson is not precluded from filing an appeal from the final judgment entered, if appropriate

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.