Inhale, Inc. v. Gravitron, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: 25-1259
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-1259 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 05/28/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

INHALE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GRAVITRON, LLC, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2025-1259 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 1:18-cv-00762-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. ORDER Gravitron, LLC moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Inhale, Inc. opposes. Gravitron replies. Inhale filed this infringement suit, and Gravitron as- serted counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment of non- infringement and invalidity. The district court granted Case: 25-1259 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 05/28/2025

Gravitron’s motion for summary judgment on non-infringe- ment but denied its motion for summary judgment of inva- lidity as “moot.” After denial of reconsideration, Inhale filed this appeal. Gravitron asserts we lack jurisdiction be- cause there is no appealable judgment. In general, this court only has jurisdiction over a “final decision” of a district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). We are not persuaded that the district court’s denial of Gravitron’s motion for summary judgment on its invalidity counter- claims as moot, without dismissing those claims, was suf- ficient to give rise to an appealable final judgment. Because at least Gravitron’s invalidity counterclaims re- main unadjudicated, there is no final judgment to yet ap- peal. See Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc., 339 F.3d 1347, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[A] judgment that does not dispose of pending counterclaims is not a final judgment.” (citation omitted)); cf. Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. 729, 736 (2023) (“[A] denial of summary judgment is simply a step along the route to final judgment, and so is typically not immedi- ately reviewable on appeal.” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject to reinstatement under the same docket number without the payment of an additional filing fee if, within 60 days from the date of entry of this order, Inhale appeals from the entry of an appeala- ble final judgment in the underlying case. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs. Case: 25-1259 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 05/28/2025

INHALE, INC. v. GRAVITRON, LLC 3

(3) The mandate shall issue forthwith. FOR THE COURT

May 28,2025 Date