## Facts

- Gordon Gould and related entities sued Control Laser Corp. and Holobeam Corp. in the Middle District of Florida for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,053,845 (laser amplifiers).
- During the infringement litigation, the patent entered PTO reexamination.
- The district court ordered that “all proceedings” be stayed until completion of the PTO reexamination.
- The plaintiffs appealed the stay order to the Federal Circuit.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, arguing the stay was not an appealable final decision.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court order staying a patent infringement action pending completion of PTO reexamination is an appealable “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1295, or qualifies under an exception to the final-judgment rule.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held the stay pending completion of PTO reexamination was interlocutory and not a “final decision.”
- The court further held the stay did not fall within the narrow exception for stays that effectively put the parties out of court.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1295, appellate jurisdiction generally extends only to final decisions of the district courts.
- Stay orders are ordinarily interlocutory and unappealable because immediate review would invite piecemeal appeals and interfere with trial-court docket management.
- A stay may be treated as effectively final only in exceptional circumstances, such as when it practically terminates the action or is immoderate or of indefinite duration and thus effectively puts the parties out of the district court.
- A stay tied to a defined event—such as completion of PTO reexamination—typically does not meet the “immoderate or indefinite” threshold.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court’s stay of a patent infringement case pending PTO reexamination because the order was not final and did not function as an effective dismissal or an indefinite, immoderate suspension of the litigation.


Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1983)