Opinion
95 Civ. 8833 (RPP)
March 8, 2002
Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper Scinto, New York, NY, Thomas H. Beck, Esq., for Plaintiff.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner, Washington, DC, Donald R. Dunner, Esq., for Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
On January 28, 2002, the Court entered final judgment in this matter, having determined that Defendants Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique, and Rhone Poulenc Rorer, S.A. (collectively "RPR") engaged in inequitable conduct in obtaining U.S. Patent No. 4, 924, 011 (issued May 8, 1990) ("`011 patent") and U.S. Patent Re. No. 34, 277 (issued June 8, 1993) ("`277 patent"). On February 22, 2002 and February 25, 2992 filed Notices of Appeal. On March 5, 2002, RPR submitted a letter to this Court expressing its "concern that the Final Judgment may not be considered final for purposes of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295" because "Bristol's invalidity claims and RPR's infringement counterclaims . . . have not been acted on in the Final Judgment and therefore remain pending in this action." (RPR's Letter dated March 5, 2002).
"The Supreme Court has stated that a district court's judgment is final where it `ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.'" W.L. Gore Assocs. v. Int'l Medical Prosthetics Research Assocs., 975 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). In this case, the Court's determination that RPR obtained the `011 and `277 patents by inequitable conduct renders those patents void and unenforceable. Bristol's invalidity claims and RPR's infringement claims are rendered moot by this determination, and no further action will be taken by the Court on this matter. Accordingly, the Court's Final Judgment entered on January 28, 2002 was a final judgment for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1295.
By filing notices of appeal on February 22 and 25, 2002, RPR divested this Court of jurisdiction with regard to its order of final judgment.See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) ("The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal"). Accordingly, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain RPR's request, nor does it believe that any changes are warranted.