Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc. et al., No. 2014-1302, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4416 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 19, 2015) (O'Malley, J.). Click Here for a copy of the opinion.
Two-Way Media sued AT&T Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, AT&T), for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 5,778,187 and 5,983,005, which relate to live-streaming technology for broadcasting audio and video over the Internet. A Texas jury found that AT&T infringed Two-Way's patents under the doctrine of equivalents and that the asserted patent claims were neither anticipated nor obvious. The jury gave Two-Way a $27.5 million damage award for reasonable royalties, which was raised to about $40 million with interest. Final judgment reflecting the jury's verdict was entered on October 7, 2013.
AT&T timely filed four motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial, regarding non-infringement, invalidity, and damages. Three of the four motions contained confidential information, and AT&T moved to file those motions under seal. On November 22, 2013, the court denied all of AT&T's motions, granted Two-Way's request for costs, and entered judgment against AT&T. When the court initially docketed these decisions, it identified the three orders addressing the confidential motions as granting the motions to seal, without indicating that the same orders denied the underlying motions on the merits. At the same time, the court correctly docketed its order denying the fourth, non-confidential JMOL motion. On November 25, 2013, the court updated the description of the orders on its docket, but did not send new notices of these updates to the parties.
After the 30 day appeal period expired, AT&T discovered that the November orders actually were final judgments that denied all of its post-trial motions. AT&T immediately filed a motion to extend or reopen the appeal period pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) and (6). The district court denied AT&T's motion and AT&T appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed. AT&T failed to show good cause or excusable neglect to warrant extending the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(5). Its reliance on the court's PACER/ECF docket and email notification, which misidentified the court's final order, was insufficient to excuse AT&T's delay. Notice of electronic filings were sent to 18 attorneys at the two firms representing AT&T. Assistants at those firms downloaded copies of all of the orders onto each firm's internal systems. The Court noted particularly that "it is the responsibility of every attorney to read the substance of each order received from the court and that it is not sufficient to rely on the email notifications received from the electronic filing system." Further, the contemporaneous order denying the non-confidential JMOL motion was accurately labeled in the original docket entry and email notice.
In these circumstances the neglect was not excusable, and the district court properly refused to extend the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(5). The Court also declined to reopen then appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6), because AT&T actually received notice of the entry of judgment when it received and downloaded those judgments, and because Two-Way Media would be prejudiced by a belated appeal.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
