Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ACTIVEVIDEO NETWORKS, INC.,
    Plaintiff-Appellee, '
    V.
    VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VERIZON
    SERVICES CORP., VERIZON VIRGINIA INC., AND
    VERIZON SOUTH INC.,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    2012-1479
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
    Eastern District of Virginia in case no. 10-CV-024& Judge
    Raymond A. Jackson.
    ON MOTION
    ORDER
    Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Services
    Corp., Verizon Virginia Inc., and Verizon South Inc.
    (collectively “Verizon") request this appeal be consolidated
    with appeal n0s. 2011-1538, -1567, 2012-1129, and -1201
    or, in the alternative, dismissed.
    ACTIVEVIDEO NETWORKS V. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS 2
    The present appeal cannot be consolidated with the
    appeals listed above, because those appeals have been
    fully briefed and argued before a merits panel.
    Further, it appears that Verizon seeks to appeal an
    unappealable interlocutory order. In its June 25, 2012
    order, the district court explained that "Verizon has not
    represented to the Court that it intends to provide Ac-
    tiveVideo or the Court with the information necessary to
    determine if Verizon is in compliance with the Court’s
    [permanent injunction] Order." As a result,.the district
    court directed Verizon to provide documents pertaining to
    Verizon’s allegedly new and non-infringing device as well
    as to provide answers to interrogatories concerning that
    device.
    Discovery orders are not final decisions and are,
    therefore, generally unappealable until final judgment
    has issued. See Connaught Laboratories, Inc._ v. Smith-
    Kline Beecham P.L.C., 
    165 F.3d 1368
    , 1369 (Fed.
    Cir.1999).
    Accordingly,
    IT Is ORDERED THAT:
    The motion is denied. Verizon is directed to show
    cause, within the next 30 days, as to why this appeal
    should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
    tion.
    FoR THE CoURT
    AUG 2 9 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly
    Date Jan Horbaly
    Clerk
    cc: Michael J. Lyons, Esq.
    Michael K. Kellogg, Esq.
    825 u.s.¢nun¥l»':§‘?»a\sp@n
    THEFEDERAL C{RCU!T
    AUG 2 9 2012
    JAN HORBA|.V
    CLERK
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2012-1479

Filed Date: 8/29/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021