Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.

511 U.S. 863 (1994)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

Desktop Direct, Inc. (plaintiff) and Digital Equipment Corporation (defendant) were involved in a legal dispute over trademark use which led to a settlement agreement. The plaintiff later sought to vacate this agreement, alleging misrepresentation by the defendant.

The issue presented was whether the order vacating the settlement was immediately appealable. The Supreme Court concluded it was not, emphasizing that rights under private settlement agreements can be adequately vindicated on appeal from final judgment.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

Desktop Direct, Inc. (plaintiff) and Digital Equipment Corporation (defendant) were both involved in the business of selling computer equipment. The dispute arose when Digital Equipment began using the name ‘Desktop Direct’ in their marketing, which Desktop Direct, Inc. claimed was an unlawful use of their trade name.

Negotiations between the two companies led to a settlement in which Digital agreed to pay Desktop Direct, Inc. for the right to continue using the name. However, Desktop Direct, Inc. later moved to vacate the dismissal of their initial suit, alleging that Digital had misrepresented material facts during the settlement negotiations.

The District Court granted this motion, leading Digital to appeal the decision. The appeal was dismissed by the Tenth Circuit for lack of jurisdiction, prompting Digital to take the case to the United States Supreme Court.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. Desktop Direct, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Digital Equipment Corporation for unlawful use of its trade name.
  2. The parties reached a settlement agreement, and Desktop Direct, Inc. dismissed the suit.
  3. Desktop Direct, Inc. later sought to vacate the dismissal, claiming misrepresentation by Digital during negotiations.
  4. The District Court granted the motion to vacate the dismissal.
  5. Digital appealed to the Tenth Circuit, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
  6. Digital appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon

Whether an order vacating a dismissal based on a settlement agreement is considered a ‘final decision’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and thus appealable before the underlying cause of action is resolved.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

The Supreme Court has established that § 1291 of the Judicial Code limits appeals as of right to final decisions of district courts. The collateral order doctrine allows for appeal of certain decisions that do not end litigation but resolve important questions separate from the merits and are effectively unreviewable on final judgment appeal.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The Supreme Court concluded that an order denying effect to a settlement agreement does not fall within the narrow scope of collateral orders that can be appealed before final judgment. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of § 1291’s final decision rule and cautioned against allowing too broad an interpretation that could undermine efficient judicial administration.

Despite Digital’s argument that it possessed a ‘right not to stand trial’ under the settlement agreement necessitating immediate appeal, the Court held that such rights are sufficiently protected by appeals from final judgments and do not require collateral order appeals.


Conclusion Icon

The Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s dismissal of Digital’s appeal, holding that an order vacating a dismissal based on a settlement agreement is not immediately appealable under § 1291.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. An order vacating a dismissal predicated on a settlement agreement does not qualify as a ‘final decision’ under § 1291 for immediate appeal.
  2. The collateral order doctrine is narrowly applied and does not extend to orders denying effect to private settlement agreements.
  3. Rights conferred by private agreements do not carry the same weight as those originating in the Constitution or statutes for purposes of immediate appellate review under § 1291.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What constitutes a 'final decision' under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 for the purposes of appeal?

A ‘final decision’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. To be appealable as of right, the decision cannot be provisional or tentative in nature.

  • For example: A district court’s grant of summary judgment that completely resolves all claims between the parties would constitute a ‘final decision.’

How does the collateral order doctrine apply to non-final orders?

The collateral order doctrine applies to a narrow range of decisions that do not end the underlying litigation but resolve important questions separate from the merits. Such orders must also be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

  • For example: A court’s order denying a motion to dismiss for immunity is appealable under the collateral order doctrine because immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial, which would be lost if review were delayed until final judgment.

In what circumstances are private settlement agreements subject to immediate appellate review?

Private settlement agreements are generally not subject to immediate appellate review. Only in exceptional circumstances where an order impinges upon an interest that is separate from the parties’ merits and would evade effective review if postponed, could it qualify.

  • For example: An order enforcing a class action settlement may be immediately appealable if it affects non-party interests or involves a jurisdictional issue related to the settlement approval.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Civil Procedure