In Mondis Technology, Ltd., et. al., v. LG Electronics Inc., Case No. 2020-1812 (Fed. Cir. August 3, 2021), Mondis sued various defendants for patent infringement in 2014, claiming that they violated a patent for a “display unit configured to receive video signals from an external video source.” A jury trial in New Jersey District Court found that LG willfully infringed certain aspects of the patent, and awarded plaintiffs $45 million in damages.
Following the verdict, LG filed three motions: a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or new trial of non-infringement; a motion for JMOL or new trial of invalidity; and a motion forJMOL, new trial, or remittitur regarding the damages award and willfulness finding. The District Court denied LG’s motions regarding infringement, invalidity, and willfulness in September 2019 but granted LG’s motion for a new trial on damages after further briefing. LG then sought interlocutory review of the District Court’s decision denying LG certain relief with respect to the liability portion of this case. Because LG’s notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the date at which the liability issues became final except for an accounting, LG’s appeal was deemed untimely and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction.
LG sought interlocutory review of the liability determination while damages remained outstanding. Because the District Court resolved all issues of liability, the case was final except for an accounting at the time of the September 2019 order. “Since LG did not file its notice of appeal until May 8, 2020, more than seven months after the September Order, LG’s appeal is untimely, and [the Appellate Court] lack[s] jurisdiction to consider the matter,” said the Federal Court of Appeals.
The parties disputed the date of the “last such remaining motion” which, under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (‘FRAP’), began the time period for an appeal. LG argued that its timely filed post-trial motions, including liability and damages related motions ruled on in an April 2020 order, tolled the start of the 30-day appeal clock under Rule 4. The Federal Court of Appeals disagreed. “When the FRAP 4(a)(4) pertains to interlocutory appeals under ? 1292(c)(2), the enumerated motions can only toll the time to appeal if they relate to the interlocutory judgment,” said the court. Rule 4 did toll the time to file an interlocutory appeal, but only untilthose motions were resolved in the September order. The damage motions that remained after the September order were unrelated and did not toll the timeframe for an interlocutory appeal on the liability portion of the case. The case was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction until the damages are settled and the decision is finalized.