{"id":1579,"date":"2017-05-26T17:26:12","date_gmt":"2017-05-26T21:26:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1579"},"modified":"2017-05-26T17:26:12","modified_gmt":"2017-05-26T21:26:12","slug":"a-patent-case-is-not-final-and-appealable-until-its-all-over-but-the-counting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1579","title":{"rendered":"A Patent Case is Not Final and Appealable Until It&#8217;s All Over but the Counting"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/16-2006.Opinion.5-24-2017.1.PDF\">Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Elecctronics, Inc.<\/a>, [2016-2006](May 26, 2017), the Federal Circuit dismissed Pulse&#8217;s appeal from the district court&#8217;s decision awarding prejudgment interest because it lacked jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p>The Federal Circuit said that the Order that Pulse appealed from could not be a final order because the\u00a0district court never resolved the parties\u2019 dispute regarding\u00a0the date from which to begin calculating prejudgment<br \/>\ninterest or set the amount of prejudgment interest to be\u00a0awarded to Halo. \u00a0As a result, there is no final decision because the district\u00a0court has not \u201cdetermine[d], or specif[ied] the means for\u00a0determining the amount\u201d of prejudgment interest.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Elecctronics, Inc., [2016-2006](May 26, 2017), the Federal Circuit dismissed Pulse&#8217;s appeal from the district court&#8217;s decision awarding prejudgment interest because it lacked jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit said that the Order that Pulse appealed from &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1579\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,41],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jurisdiction","category-litigation"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1579","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1579"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1579\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1580,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1579\/revisions\/1580"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}