Adverse Claim Construction and Evidentiary Rulings Do Not Justify Immediate Appeal Under Rule 54(b)

Following claim construction and an order in limine precluding testimony by plaintiff's damages expert, the court ordered additional briefing on the parties' stipulated motion for judgment of noninfringement under Rule 54(b). "[T]he stipulated judgment does not constitute a disposal of an 'individual claim' in this action. The stipulated judgment states that in light of the court’s three pretrial orders, '[Plaintiff] acknowledges that . . . it cannot prove infringement on the claims to be tried . . . or to the extent it could prove infringement, it has no available remedies.'. . . [Plaintiff's] equivocation leaves open the possibility that it could still prove infringement. . . . [Plaintiff] cannot appeal the court’s rulings if some other avenue for proving infringement still exists and is reserved; it must stipulate to a judgment that precludes any avenues for proving infringement. Moreover, it is not clear to the court from the record before it why its pretrial orders mandate that [plaintiff] cannot prove infringement. . . . [A] ruling on a motion in limine alone does not create 'an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.' Appeals on claim construction rulings alone also are disfavored."

Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc., 5-11-cv-05973 (CAND August 28, 2013, Order) (Grewal, M.J.).