`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Plaintiff-Appellee
`
`v.
`
`PHAZZER ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Defendant
`
`STEVEN ABBOUD,
`Sanctioned Party-Appellant
`______________________
`
`2018-2057
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Middle District of Florida in No. 6:16-cv-00366-PGB-KRS,
`Judge Paul G. Byron.
`______________________
`
`Decided: July 23, 2019
`______________________
`
`STEVEN ABBOUD, Omaha, NE, pro se.
`
`
` PAMELA BETH PETERSEN, Axon Enterprise, Inc., Scotts-
`dale, AZ, argued for plaintiff-appellee.
` ______________________
`
`Before O’MALLEY, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`
`2
`
`TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. PHAZZER ELECTRONICS, INC.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Steven Abboud (“Abboud”) appeals from the district
`court’s order granting in part Taser International, Inc.’s
`motion for contempt. Taser Int’l, Inc. v. Phazzer Elecs.,
`Inc., No. 6:16-cv-366, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190783 (M.D.
`Fla. May 4, 2018). Specifically, the district court held
`Phazzer Electronics, Inc. (“Phazzer”) and Abboud in civil
`contempt for violating the court’s permanent injunction by
`continuing to sell and offer to sell infringing merchandise.
`Id. at *7. Although the court found both Phazzer and Ab-
`boud in civil contempt, it declined to issue any sanctions
`stemming from that holding. Id. at *11. The court ex-
`plained that, because it had already granted Taser’s mo-
`tion
`for damages and awarded Taser a total of
`$7,869,578.74 in damages, fees, and costs from Phazzer,
`“the issuance of additional monetary sanctions would be
`punitive as opposed to coercive in nature.” Id. at *10–11.
`On appeal, Abboud argues that the district court erred
`in holding him in contempt and challenges the propriety of
`the underlying injunction. In response, Taser argues that:
`(1) Abboud has not demonstrated standing; and (2) even if
`the court finds standing, Abboud’s appeal fails on the mer-
`its. Because we agree with the first point, we need not ad-
`dress the second.
`Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of
`federal courts to “cases” and “controversies.” Lujan v. De-
`fenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). A party
`invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden to establish:
`(1) an injury in fact; (2) a causal connection between the
`injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) that a favor-
`able decision will likely redress the injury. Lujan, 504 U.S.
`at 560–61. To satisfy the “injury in fact” requirement, a
`party must demonstrate both that the harm is “concrete
`and particularized” and that it is “actual or imminent, not
`‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Id. at 560 (internal citations
`omitted).
`
`
`
`TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. PHAZZER ELECTRONICS, INC.
`
`3
`
`Here, it is undisputed that Abboud is not a party to the
`district court action. It is also undisputed that Abboud was
`not sanctioned as a result of the district court’s civil con-
`tempt finding. Nor is there any judgment against Abboud.
`Abboud claims to have suffered “substantial harm and ir-
`reparable injury.” Abboud Br. 8. But despite having mul-
`tiple opportunities to do so, he has not alleged any
`particularized injury. Because there is no sanction against
`him and no injury, Abboud does not have standing to ap-
`peal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of stand-
`ing.
`
`DISMISSED
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
