Poweroasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. , 249 F. App'x 198 ( 2007 )

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-1265
POWEROASIS, INC.
and POWEROASIS NETWORKS, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
----------------------
2007-1307
POWEROASIS, INC.
and POWEROASIS NETWORKS, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
ON MOTION
Before RADER, SCHALL, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
BRYSON, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
PowerOasis, Inc. and PowerOasis Networks, LLC (PowerOasis) move to dismiss
T-Mobile USA, Inc.’s contingent cross-appeal. T-Mobile opposes. PowerOasis replies.
PowerOasis filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire against T-Mobile alleging patent infringement. After the district court
issued its Markman order, PowerOasis moved for summary judgment of infringement.
T-Mobile opposed and moved for summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity
on 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) grounds.
On March 30, 2007, the district court granted T-Mobile’s motion for summary
judgment of invalidity, rejecting PowerOasis’s assertion that the claims-in-suit were
entitled to the priority date of the original parent application. In doing so, the district
court construed “customer interface” to determine that the subject matter claimed in the
claims-in-suit extended beyond what was claimed in PowerOasis’s original application.
Because the district court decided the case on invalidity, it did not address either
PowerOasis’s motion for summary judgment of infringement or T-Mobile’s motion for
summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court entered its judgment.
PowerOasis appealed. T-Mobile then filed a cross-appeal from the March 30,
2007 order “contingent upon the Federal Circuit not affirming the District Court’s grant of
summary judgment of invalidity.” Specifically, T-Mobile seeks a contingent review of the
district court’s construction of “customer interface,” noting the relevance of the issue on
the parties’ unresolved motions regarding infringement. T-Mobile further argues that
allowing the cross-appeal and resolving the claim construction issue on appeal would
avoid potential unnecessary litigation below, particularly in light of an alleged conflicting
claim construction of “customer interface” in a separate case involving the same patent.
PowerOasis moves to dismiss T-Mobile’s cross-appeal. We agree that the
2007-1265, -1307 2
cross-appeal is improper and should be dismissed.
It is only necessary and appropriate to file a cross-appeal when a party seeks to
enlarge its own rights under the judgment or lessen the rights of its adversary under the
judgment. Bailey v. Dart, 292 F.3d 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing United States v.
Am Ry. Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435 (1924). Here, the district court’s judgment is
limited to validity and a ruling on infringement would not enlarge T-Mobile’s rights under
that judgment or lessen PowerOasis’s rights. Thus, a cross-appeal to challenge
unresolved infringement issues is not proper.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) PowerOasis’s motion is granted. T-Mobile’s cross-appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs in 2007-1307.
(3) The revised official caption is reflected above.
FOR THE COURT
Sept. 28, 2007 /s/ William C. Bryson
Date William C. Bryson
Circuit Judge
cc: Sibley P. Reppert, Esq.
William F. Lee, Esq.
s19
ISSUED AS A MANDATE (As to 2007-1307 only): ______________________
2007-1265, -1307 3