Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc. et al
Filing
513
ORDER Denying 500 Plaintiff Halo's Request for Entry of Judgment Following the Jury Verdict Pursuant to Rule 58(d) and Proposed Judgment. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 1/10/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
HALO ELECTRONICS, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC. and
PULSE ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION,
16
Defendants.
17
18
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:07-cv-00331-PMP-PAL
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Halo Electronics’s (“Halo”) Motion for the Entry of
19
Judgment Following the Jury Verdict (Doc. #500), filed December 5, 2012. Defendants
20
Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corporation (collectively “Pulse”) filed a
21
Response (Doc. #501) on December 6, 2012. Halo filed a Reply (Doc. #502) on
22
December 7, 2012.
23
Halo argues that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, judgment
24
consistent with the jury’s verdict should be entered immediately. Halo argues Rule 58
25
mandates prompt entry of a judgment on the jury verdict regardless of any outstanding
26
issues. Pulse responds that the Court still must decide Pulse’s equitable defenses and make
1
the legal determinations of obviousness and willfulness. Pulse argues these outstanding
2
issues trigger the application of Rule 54(b), and Halo has not shown just cause for entering
3
partial judgment. Halo replies that it is routine in patent cases for the clerk to automatically
4
enter judgment on a jury verdict or for courts to enter judgments upon request by a party.
5
Halo also argues the equitable defenses and questions of law are post-trial issues that should
6
not delay the entry of judgment on the jury verdict.
7
Rule 58(b)(2) states that when a jury returns a special verdict the Court must
8
promptly approve the form of the judgment and the clerk must promptly enter the
9
judgment. This provision is subject to Rule 54(b), which gives the Court the discretion to
10
“direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties.”
11
The Court may exercise this discretion “only if the court expressly determines that there is
12
no just reason for delay” in entering judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “In determining
13
whether just reason for delay of entry of judgment exists, courts consider such factors as
14
the interrelationship of the claims so as to prevent piecemeal appeals.” Duhn Oil Tool, Inc.
15
v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 818 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 1231 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (citing
16
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2006)).
17
Pulse’s equitable defense claims and the questions of law which the Court must
18
decide are unresolved trial issues with the potential to affect the findings in the jury’s
19
verdict. Therefore, due to these outstanding legal issues, there is just reason delaying
20
entering the judgment, and the Court will not enter judgment at this time. See O2 Micro
21
Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 420 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2006),
22
aff’d by 221 F. App’x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (district court entered judgment after making
23
equitable defense and question of law determinations, and not directly following jury
24
verdict); Duhn Oil Tool, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d at 1231 (finding a just reason for delay in
25
entering judgment on infringement because a new trial was required on the defendant’s
26
affirmative defense of anticipation, which if proven would moot the infringement findings).
2
1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Halo’s Request for Entry of
2
Judgment Following the Jury Verdict Pursuant to Rule 58(d) and Proposed Judgment (Doc.
3
#500) is hereby DENIED.
4
5
6
7
DATED: January 10, 2013
_______________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?