LEGGETT & PLATT V VUTEK, No. 07-1189 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1189 LEGGETT & PLATT, INCORPORATED and L&P PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VUTEK, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ON MOTION Before MAYER, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judge. LINN, Circuit Judge. ORDER VUTEk, Inc. moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of a final judgment. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated et al. (L&P) oppose. VUTEk replies. L&P sued VUTEk for infringement of its patent. declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity. VUTEk counterclaimed for The parties moved for summary judgment concerning infringement and invalidity. The district court granted the motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims. The district court did not decide the motions regarding infringement but stated that "I would have denied them if that had been necessary, because factual issues remained on the question of infringement." The district court entered a judgment "that defendant VUTEk shall have judgment on plaintiffs' complaint and on its counterclaim, and plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, and 19 of U.S. Patent 6,755,518 are invalid." After L&P filed its appeal from that judgment, it asked the district court to certify pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) the district court's disposition of the complaint and/or VUTEk's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of invalidity, because it appeared that VUTEk's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement remained pending. The judge denied the motion for a Rule 54(b) judgment, stating that she had ruled on all claims and that any infringement issues "became moot." VUTEk argues that the district court's judgment did not, one way or the other, decide its counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. We agree. If the district court decided not to address infringement, then it necessarily denied VUTEk's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, a determination that VUTEk might have chosen to appeal. The final judgment does not state such a disposition, but instead states that it granted judgment to VUTEk "on its counterclaim." Apparently, the district court granted relief on the counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity but stated no disposition of the other counterclaim. We make no determination whether the district court should deny VUTEk's counterclaim for noninfringement as moot or decide it. In any event, until it has been disposed of, absent a Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) judgment, there is no final judgment on all claims for relief and we must dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) 2007-1189 The motion to dismiss is granted. -2- (2) All other pending motions are moot. FOR THE COURT June 27, 2007 Date cc: /s/ Richard Linn Richard Linn Circuit Judge David A. Roodman, Esq. Russell Burke Hill, Esq. s8 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 27, 2007 2007-1189 -3-
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.
