March 4, 2020
Authored and Edited by Brooke M. Wilner; Samhitha Muralidhar 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.
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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Conference
Boston Intellectual Property Law Association 4th Annual Symposium
April 10-11, 2024
Boston
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.