January 2013 This month, in Allflex USA, Inc. v. Avid Identification Systems, Inc., No. 11-1621 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17, 2013), the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal on grounds of mootness and declined to disturb the judgment of the district court. In this appeal, only the defendant-appellant, Avid Identification Systems, Inc. (“Avid”) filed a brief, seeking to overturn the district court’s judgment in several respects. The would-be appellee, Allflex USA, Inc. (“Allflex”), declined to file a brief because the parties had settled their dispute with a payment from Avid to Allflex, with the agreement that if Avid succeeded on any of the appealed issues, Avid’s settlement payment to Allflex would be reduced by $50,000. The Court noted a number of procedural problems with the appeal, but stated that the main problem created by the posture of this case was mootness. Finding that the “contingent payment does not reflect an actual damages award . . . and it does not represent a liquidated damages award,” the Court held that “the $50,000 cannot be fairly characterized as a reasonable estimate of a prospective damages award that would take the place of an adjudicated damages award following appeal.” Slip op.at 12-13. In conclusion, the Court held that Avid had “identified no relationship between the valuation placed on the appeal and the issues the appellant wishe[d] to challenge, the parties have simply placed a ‘side bet’ on the outcome of the appeal, which is not enough to avoid a ruling of mootness.” Id. at 14.
Read the full summary of the Court’s decision in next month’s edition of Last Month at the Federal Circuit.
Looking Ahead
