Carotek, Inc. v. Kobayashi Ventures, LLC

2 Citing cases

  1. Sycamore IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp.

    Case No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB LEAD CASE (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2018)   Cited 4 times

    The parties should include in their submission a statement as to the reasons that the Court should find that there is "no just reason for delay" and that the Court should enter a final judgment as to fewer than all the claims asserted in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Carotek, Inc. v. Kobayashi Ventures, L.L.C., 409 F. App'x 329, 331 (Fed. Cir. 2010). IT IS SO ORDERED.

  2. Cont'l Datalabel, Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp.

    09 C 5980 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2012)

    We do not suggest that the presence of one of these factors [including the possibility that the "appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once" if a subsequent appeal occurred] would necessarily mean that Rule 54(b) certification would be improper. It would, however, require the district court to find a sufficiently important reason for nonetheless granting certification. For example, if the district court concluded that there was a possibility that an appellate court would have to face the same issues on a subsequent appeal, this might perhaps be offset by a finding that an appellate resolution of the certified claims would facilitate a settlement of the remainder of the claims. 446 U.S. at 8 n. 2; see also Carotek, Inc. v. Kobayashi Ventures, LLC, 409 F. App'x 329, 331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (even where the appellate court "will likely have to decide multiple appeals with the potential of overlapping factual and perhaps legal issues," "such potential does not necessarily negate proper Rule 54(b) certification when the district court provides a sufficiently important reason for doing so"); Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Dearborn Title Corp., 118 F.3d 1157, 1163 (7th Cir. 1997) ("some overlap between the facts in the retained and the appealed claims is not fatal"); W.L. Gore, 975 F.2d at 864 ("factual overlap on only tangential issues or on 'one aspect' of a counterclaim is not adequate to show an abuse of discretion"). Continental next asserts that "[t]here is also possible overlap in damages which, for all counts, depend on sales and profits made by Avery and/or lost by Continental."