IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Recusal not required in fitness tracker patent dispute, (Nov 1, 2024)

By Kevin M. Finson

A trial judge was not required to recuse herself from a case because she may have owned mutual funds that held stock in a party’s parent company because the motion was not filed until well after the corporate relationship was disclosed.

A patentee was not entitled to recusal of a district court judge who may have owned mutual funds that held stock in the opposing party’s parent company, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The motion to recuse was filed several months after the party claiming recusal was made aware of the purported grounds and appeared to be strategic in nature (Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC, No. 2023-1526 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2024)).

Cellspin Soft, Inc. (Cellspin) brought separate suits in the federal district court in Oakland, California, against Fitbit, LLC, Nikon Americas, Inc., and Nikon, Inc., as well as other companies, for infringement of several patents. The cases were not consolidated but were tried together. The trial court entered summary judgment of non-infringement, and several months later, while the cases were on appeal from the summary judgment motion, Cellspin filed a motion to recuse the trial judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The trial judge denied the motion to recuse. Cellspin appealed.

Notice of Appeal. The court found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the denial of the motion to recuse as to the Nikon defendants because Cellspin filed a notice of appeal only in its case against Fitbit, LLC. The requirement to file a notice of appeal was jurisdictional and could not be waived, and Cellspin was required to file such a notice in each case it intended to appeal.

Recusal. Cellspin argued that Judge Rogers ought to have recused herself because she and her husband held some financial investments in mutual funds which held Google stock, and during the course of the litigation Fitbit, LLC was acquired by Google. The court found that this ground for recusal was untimely, as Fitbit, LLC updated its corporate disclosures while the case was pending and the recusal motion was not filed until months after summary judgment was granted. The court also found that any error was harmless, as the summary judgment motion was granted on identical grounds as to the uncontested other defendants.

The court affirmed the denial of the motion to recuse.

The case is No. 2023-1526.

Judge: Taranto, R.

Attorneys: Michael Scott Fuller (Garteiser Honea, PLLC) for Cellspin Soft, Inc. Karim Zeddam Oussayef (Desmarais LLP) for Fitbit LLC. Seth W. Lloyd (Morrison & Foerster LLP) for Nikon Americas, Inc., and Nikon Inc.

Companies: Cellspin Soft, Inc.; Fitbit LLC; Nikon Americas, Inc.; Nikon Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews CaliforniaNews