Funai Electric Company, Ltd. v. Daewoo Electronics Corporation et al

Filing 891

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 887 Motion to Stay (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL., Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ On March 30, 2009, Defendants filed a motion entitled "Emergency Renewed Motion to Amend Judgment and Stay Execution" (hereinafter, "Emergency Motion" or "Motion"), in which Defendants noticed a hearing for Friday, April 3, 2009. Defendants assert in the Motion that the Court's Corrected Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, filed February 13, 2009 [docket no. 809], must be amended to reflect the fact that the Court's judgment is not, in fact, final because the Court has not yet determined the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded. Defendants also seek a stay on the execution of the judgment on the basis that it is not final. Defendants rely on the Federal Circuit's decision in Special Devices, Inc. v. OEA, Inc., 269 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The Emergency Motion is DENIED. The hearing noticed for April 3, 2009 is vacated. In Special Devices, the Federal Circuit held that where the only issue on appeal is the award of attorneys' fees, the district court's decision is not final until the amount of attorneys' fees is quantified. Id. at 1345. The court expressly distinguished cases in which the appeal raises issues relating to the merits of the case, such as validity and infringement. Id. Under such circumstances, the court held, a decision may be final even where attorneys' fees have not been quantified. Id. (citing Majorette Toys, Inc. v. Darda Inc., USA, 798 F.2d 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Here, it is undisputed that the appeal raises issues relating to the merits of Funai's patent infringement claims. Accordingly, this Court's decision does not lack finality for failure to quantify attorneys' fees. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff(s), Case No. C04-01830 JCS ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' EMERGENCY MOTION AND VACATING HEARING [Docket No. 887]

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Indeed, all parties have acknowledged this finality by filing notices of appeal from the judgment in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2009 ___________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2