from the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada in No. 2:07-cv-00331-APG-PAL, Judge Andrew P. Gordon.
E. Countryman, Fish & Richardson, PC, San Diego, CA,
argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by Michael J.
Kane, William Woodford, John A. Dragseth, Minneapolis, MN.
Lee Hogge, Dentons U.S. LLP, Washington, DC, argued for
defendants-appellants. Also represented by Shailendra K.
Maheshwari, Rajesh Charles Noronha, Nicholas Hunt Jackson.
Lourie, Moore, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.
Lourie, Circuit Judge.
Electronics, Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corporation
(together, "Pulse") appeal from the decision of the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
awarding Halo Electronics, Inc. ("Halo")
prejudgment interest. See Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse
Elecs., Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00331-APG-PAL, slip op. (D.
Nev. Apr. 6, 2016) (Joint Appendix "J.A." 1-2).
Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.
owns U.S. Patents 5, 656, 985, 6, 297, 720, and 6, 344, 785
(collectively, the "Halo patents"). In 2007, Halo
sued Pulse for patent infringement. Pulse denied infringement
and challenged the validity of the Halo patents. Pulse also
filed a counterclaim not relevant to the issues in this
appeal. Following trial, the jury found that: (1) Pulse
directly infringed the Halo patents with products that it
shipped into the United States; (2) Pulse induced others to
infringe the Halo patents with products that it delivered
outside the United States but ultimately were imported into
the United States in finished end products; (3) it was highly
probable that Pulse's infringement was willful; and (4)
the asserted claims of the Halo patents were not invalid for
obviousness. The jury awarded Halo $1.5 million in reasonable
28, 2013, after the conclusion of post-trial briefing, the
district court held, inter alia, that Pulse had not
willfully infringed Halo's patents and entered judgment
in favor of Halo in the amount of $1.5 million. Halo
subsequently filed a bill of costs and the court taxed costs
in the amount of $51, 087.24. Halo did not file a motion for
pre- or post-judgment interest in 2013.
parties appealed various aspects of the disposition to this
court. Relevant here, Halo appealed from the district
court's conclusion that Pulse's infringement was not
willful and attendant failure to enhance damages, and this
court affirmed. See Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs.,
Inc., 769 F.3d 1371, 1381-83 (Fed. Cir. 2014),
vacated and remanded, 136 S.Ct. 1923 (2016). The
parties asserted that this court had jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). In its
opening brief, Halo characterized the May 28, 2013 judgment
as a "final judgment." J.A. 5017. On March 30,
2015, this court's mandate issued ("Original
9, 2015, Halo filed a motion in the district court seeking,
inter alia, an accounting for supplemental damages
and an award of pre- and post-judgment interest. Pulse filed
an opposition to Halo's motion contesting, inter
alia, the timeliness of Halo's motion for
October 19, 2015, the Supreme Court granted, in part,
Halo's petition for a writ of certiorari, limiting its
review to the question relating to enhanced damages. Halo
Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S.Ct. 356
(2015). The Supreme Court subsequently held that the enhanced
damages test applied by this court was inconsistent with 35
U.S.C. § 284, and vacated and remanded to this court for
proceedings consistent with its opinion. Halo Elecs.,
Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1923, 1935-36
(2016). On remand, this court recalled the Original Mandate
on July 14, 2016. We then vacated the district court's
unenhanced damages award with respect to products that were
delivered in the United States, remanded for proceedings
consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion on enhanced
damages, and reaffirmed its prior opinion in all other
respects. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
831 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016). On September 12, 2016,
this court's mandate issued ("Remand Mandate").
April 6, 2016, prior to the Original Mandate being recalled,
the district court awarded Halo (1) prejudgment interest
"at the rate set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.130,
compounded annually, through May 28, 2013"; (2)
post-judgment interest; and (3) supplemental damages for
direct infringement. J.A. 1. The court did not set the amount
of total prejudgment interest or the date from which to begin
calculating such interest. Rather, it ordered Halo to prepare
an updated calculation of the pre-and post-judgment interest
amounts through the date of the court's order, and the
parties to submit briefing on the issue of pre- and
post-judgment interest if they could not stipulate to the
total amount of interest. The court also ordered Pulse to
produce financial data to Halo to assess supplemental
April 27, 2016, the parties submitted briefing disputing the
amount of pre- and post-judgment interest and the correct
date from which to start assessing prejudg-ment interest.
Halo contended that prejudgment interest on the entire $1.5
million jury award of damages began to accrue on the date
that the complaint and summons were served, March 20, 2007.
Pulse responded that Halo had not suffered $1.5 million of
damages at the beginning of the damages period and thus was
not entitled to compensation in that amount of damages as of
the date of filing of the complaint. Pulse asserted that the