Case: 23-2286 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 12/18/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
FITBIT LLC,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2286
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in No. 1:19-cv-11586-FDS, Chief
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Fitbit LLC moves to dismiss this appeal as premature.
Philips North America, LLC (“Philips”) moves for an exten-
sion of time to respond to Fitbit’s motion based on Philips’
motion in the district court for entry of final judgment. The
district court has since denied that motion without
Case: 23-2286 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 12/18/2023
2 PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC v. FITBIT LLC
prejudice, concluding that “it appears that [the court] is
without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.” Dkt.
No. 432.
Philips sued Fitbit for patent infringement of U.S. Pa-
tent Nos. 6,013,007 (the “’007 patent”); 7,088,233 (the “’233
patent”); and 8,277,377 (the “’377 patent”). The district
court concluded that the asserted claims in the ’007 patent
were indefinite, Dkt. No. 212, and the asserted claims of
the ’377 patent were invalid, Dkt. No. 401. The district
court stayed proceedings as to the ’233 patent based on the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)’s finding that the
claims were unpatentable. Dkt. No. 386. This court has
since affirmed the PTAB’s decision, Philips N. Am., LLC v.
Fitbit LLC, Nos. 2022-1223 et al.,
2023 WL 2808489 (Fed.
Cir. Apr. 6, 2023), but the district court has not yet issued
an order lifting the stay or otherwise resolving the claims.
In general, we only have jurisdiction after a “final deci-
sion” from the district court. See
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1);
Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.,
809 F.3d 599, 604 (Fed.
Cir. 2015). A “final decision” is one that “ends the litigation
on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States,
324 U.S.
229, 233 (1945). “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’ under
28 U.S.C. §
1295(a)(1) and therefore no jurisdiction.” Nystrom v.
TREX Co., Inc.,
339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Because the district court has not
finally resolved all pending claims, there is no appealable
Case: 23-2286 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 12/18/2023
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC v. FITBIT LLC 3
final decision. See PureWick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC,
Appeal No. 23-1868, ECF No. 13 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2023). *
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Fitbit’s motion is granted, and the appeal is dis-
missed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
December 18, 2023
Date
cc: United States District Court for the District of Massa-
chusetts
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 18, 2023
* We acknowledge that Philips has not yet responded
to Fitbit’s motion to dismiss, but Philips has sought exten-
sions to respond to this motion while seeking entry of final
judgment before the district court. Given our disposition of
this appeal, the district court has jurisdiction to review any
renewed motion for entry of final judgment.
