Case: 13-1155 Document: 49 Page: 1 Filed: 10/03/2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
TESCO CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, LP,
Defendant-Appellee,
AND
OFFSHORE ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
AND
FRANK’S CASING CREW AND RENTAL TOOLS,
INC.,
Defendant-Cross Appellant.
__________________________
2013-1155, -1262
__________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas in No. 08-CV-2531, Judge
Keith P. Ellison.
__________________________
ON MOTION
__________________________
Case: 13-1155 Document: 49 Page: 2 Filed: 10/03/2013
TESCO CORPORATION v. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P. 2
Before DYK, MOORE, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
DYK, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
National Oilwell Varco, LP (NOV), Offshore Energy
Services, Inc. (OES), and Frank’s Casing Crew and Rental
Tools, Inc. (Frank’s) (collectively Appellees) move to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Tesco Corporation (Tesco)
opposes. The United States District Court for the South-
ern District of Texas submits a letter.
Tesco, the owner of the two patents at issue, brought
suit against Appellees for infringement of the patents. A
jury found the claims of one of the patents valid and the
claims of the other patent invalid. Because of internal
inconsistencies in the jury verdict, and because of concern
that Tesco had not produced all of the discovery requested
at trial, the district court authorized limited additional
discovery. After engaging in the limited post-trial discov-
ery, the parties filed numerous post-trial motions.
The district court granted Frank’s post-trial motion
for summary judgment on obviousness and NOV and
OES’s motion for summary judgment of patent invalidity.
The district court also denied as moot Frank’s motion for
entry of judgment of inequitable conduct, Frank’s revised
sealed motion for judgment of inequitable conduct, and
Appellee’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial
of Appellee’s post-trial motions for summary judgment.
The district court has indicated that some of these actions
may be reconsidered. Frank’s motion for attorney’s fees
was also denied. Tesco appealed the order and Frank’s
subsequently filed a cross-appeal from the same order in
case no. 2013-1262.
Appellees contend that the order is non-final and not
appealable because: (1) their affirmative defenses and
declaratory judgment claims of unenforceability and
Case: 13-1155 Document: 49 Page: 3 Filed: 10/03/2013
3 TESCO CORPORATION v. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P.
attorneys’ fees are unresolved; (2) there was no final
judgment from the district court; and (3) the district court
has yet to rule on outstanding motions. Tesco argues that
the order is final and appealable because “the facts
demonstrate that the district court intended to end the
case.”
We agree with Appellees that the appeal is premature
and that Tesco has made no showing that it is appealable.
Because there are pending claims, there is no final judg-
ment and this appeal is premature. See Nystrom v.
TREX Co.,
339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“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 . . . and therefore no jurisdiction”). As the
cross-appeal in case no. 2013-1262 is from the same non-
appealable, non-final order, dismissal of that appeal is
also warranted.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted. The ap-
peals are dismissed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk
s26
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 3, 2013
