直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Settlement Agreement Moots an Action, Even If It Requires Future Performance

March 4, 2020

Authored and Edited by Brooke M Wilner; Samhitha M. Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

The district court granted a party’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement—after the parties had entered into a settlement agreement.  The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded in Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc., Nos. 19-1098, 19-1159 (Feb. 13, 2020).

Serta alleged that Casper infringed its mattress patents.  Casper moved for summary judgment of noninfringement.  On June 18, 2018, with those motions still pending, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that, among other things, required Casper to stop manufacturing and marketing certain products by mid-July and pay a settlement amount by June 28, 2018.  Two days later, without mentioning the settlement, the court granted Casper’s summary judgment motions.  Casper then refused to pay. 

The district court denied Serta’s subsequent motions to enforce the settlement agreement, finding that the case was not moot upon its signing because the parties intended to fulfill their obligations under the agreement in the future.  Further, because the court believed that it had entered final judgment before Serta filed its motion to enforce, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.  Serta appealed.

The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that a binding settlement agreement moots an action even if that agreement requires future performance.  The Court noted that in some circumstances, a court may refuse to enforce such agreements, for example if they are against public policy.  Because neither party indicated such circumstances existed in this case, the Court found that the agreement was enforceable, and thus the case was rendered moot when the parties entered the agreement.

The Federal Circuit also held that a district court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement so long as the motion to enforce is filed before the case has been dismissed.  The Court thus directed the district court to enforce the parties’ agreement upon remand.

Tags

summary judgment

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information. 

Related Insights

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP