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

When Final Judgement Is not Final Enough

June 12, 2024

Authored and Edited by Christian Sanders; Christina Ji-Hye Yang; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., No. 22-2064 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s amended final judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case as moot in view of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) finding all asserted claims unpatentable.

The district court held that NetScout infringed claims of three patents and awarded damages and an ongoing royalty to Packet Intelligence. NetScout appealed, and the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the damages award. While the remand was pending, the Board issued Final Written Decisions finding all asserted claims unpatentable. Packet appealed. NetScout moved to dismiss or stay the district case until the conclusion of Packet’s appeal on the PTAB decisions. The district court denied the motion and entered an amended final judgment eliminating all pre-suit damages, reducing enhanced damages and ongoing royalty rate, but retaining the full post-suit damages. NetScout appealed again.

The Federal Circuit rejected Packet’s argument that the Federal Circuit’s decision in the first appeal rendered this case immune to subsequent determination unpatentability because the remand required the district court to issue an amended judgment, which had financial consequences. Further, the ongoing pendency of this case was not due to NetScout’s assertion of issues that are insubstantial and legally untenable, and thus, the Board’s unpatentability determination must be given effect.

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Christian Sanders
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4172
Email
Christina Ji-Hye Yang
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4465
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2024 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

Articles

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

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Articles

COPPA’s Amended Rule Is Now in Full Effect: What Operators Need to Know

May 15, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

When “and” and “e.g.” Matter: Federal Circuit Revives VLSI vs. Intel Case

May 14, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay

May 14, 2026

IP Updates

Tenth Circuit Sides with Netflix in Tiger King Copyright Challenge 

May 5, 2026

Conference

International Trade Commission Litigation & Enforcement

May 4-5, 2026

Washington, DC

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