Pop Top Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
POP TOP CORP.,
Plaintiff
v.
RAKUTEN KOBO INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
v.
ROHIT CHANDRA,
Movant-Appellant
______________________
2025-1392
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 4:20-cv-04482-YGR,
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
______________________
Decided: December 9, 2025
______________________
J OSHUA L EE RASKIN, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New
York, NY, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
K ATHRYN ALBANESE , VIMAL K APADIA , J USTIN ALBANO
MAC L EAN.
Case: 25-1392 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 1 of 6 --

POP TOP CORP. v. RAKUTEN KOBO INC. 2
ROHIT CHANDRA, Sunnyvale, CA, pro se.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, STARK, Circuit Judge, and
O ETKEN, District Judge.1
STARK, Circuit Judge,
Pro se Appellant Rohit Chandra appeals from an order
of the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of California adding him as a debtor to an existing
judgment against his company, Pop Top Corp. (“Pop Top”).
S.A. 17-28.2 Mr. Chandra also moves for sanctions against
Appellee Rakuten Kobo Inc. (“Kobo”) and its counsel, ECF
No. 30, and a stay of collection of the judgment against him,
ECF No. 48. We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Chandra’s ap-
peal due to his failure to file a timely notice of appeal. We
therefore dismiss his appeal and deny his motions.3
I
On June 25, 2021, the district court granted summary
judgment of non-infringement to Kobo in a suit brought by
Pop Top that alleged Kobo infringed Pop Top’s U.S. Patent
No. 7,966,623. S.A. 52. With the consent of the parties,
this dispositive motion was resolved by a magistrate judge.
S.A. 69-70. Pop Top appealed that decision to our court,
1 The Honorable J. Paul Oetken, District Judge,
United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, sitting by designation.
2 “S.A.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed by
Appellee Rakuten Kobo Inc. ECF No. 33.
3 Mr. Chandra also moves to supplement the record.
ECF No. 49. Because that motion relates entirely to our
internal processing of this appeal, we grant it.
Case: 25-1392 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 2 of 6 --

POP TOP CORP. v. RAKUTEN KOBO INC. 3
and Kobo moved for an award of attorneys’ fees. Pop Top
Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc., 2022 WL 2751662 (Fed. Cir.
July 14, 2022). We granted Kobo’s motion as a sanction
because “Pop Top’s appeal was frivolous,” and held Pop Top
and its attorney jointly and severally liable to pay Kobo
$107,748.27. Id. at *2-3. Pop Top’s counsel paid Kobo the
$107,748.27.
Meanwhile, Kobo sought to recover additional attor-
neys’ fees it had expended in this litigation by filing a mo-
tion pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 in the district court. S.A.
53. Finding that Pop Top’s case was “objectively unreason-
able” and “substantive[ly] weak[],” the court granted the
motion and awarded Kobo $274,721.43, to be paid within
30 days (the “Fees Award”). S.A. 71, 80, 91. In a subse-
quent appeal, we again affirmed. See Pop Top Corp. v.
Rakuten Kobo Inc., 2023 WL 2783178, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Apr.
5, 2023). Pop Top never paid the Fees Award.
Back in the district court, Kobo moved under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) to amend the Fees Award
judgment and add Mr. Chandra as Pop Top’s alter ego (the
“Motion to Amend”). S.A. 460-82. On April 2, 2024, the
Chief Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Cali-
fornia issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), rec-
ommending that the district court grant the Motion to
Amend. S.A. 15. On August 15, 2024, applying de novo
review, a district judge adopted the R&R and added Appel-
lant to the Fees Award judgment. S.A. 28; see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
On August 29, 2024, Mr. Chandra moved for an exten-
sion of time to file a motion for reconsideration. S.A. 780-
85. That motion was denied as moot because the district’s
local rules require first seeking leave to file a motion for
reconsideration (and hence do not set forth a specific dead-
line for filing such a motion). S.A. 788. On October 25,
2024, Mr. Chandra properly moved for leave, which the dis-
trict court denied on December 17, 2024. S.A. 62, 789-800.
Case: 25-1392 Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 3 of 6 --

POP TOP CORP. v. RAKUTEN KOBO INC. 4
At no time did Mr. Chandra file a motion to extend the time
to file a notice of appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c).
Mr. Chandra incorrectly noticed an appeal to the
Ninth Circuit on January 15, 2025. S.A. 801-05. He then
filed his notice of appeal to this court on January 17, 2025.
S.A. 807-10.
II
Kobo argues that we must dismiss Mr. Chandra’s ap-
peal for lack of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was
untimely. Kobo is correct.
“In a civil case . . . the notice of appeal required by Rule
3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after
entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) (“[A] notice
of appeal [must be] filed[] within thirty days after the entry
of [a] judgment, order or decree.”). “If a party files in the
district court any of the following motions under the Fed-
eral Rules of Civil Procedure – and does so within the time
allowed by those rules – the time to file an appeal runs for
all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last
such remaining motion: . . . to alter or amend the judgment
under Rule 59; [or] . . . for relief under Rule 60 if the motion
is filed within the time allowed for filing a motion under
Rule 59.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi). A motion un-
der Rule 59 “must be filed no later than 28 days after the
entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Here, the order appealed from is the district court’s
amended final judgment, adding Mr. Chandra to the judg-
ment, which the district court entered on August 15, 2024.
S.A. 28.4 This made Mr. Chandra’s notice of appeal due 30
4 Although Mr. Chandra’s notice of appeal to this
Court purported to appeal both the final judgment and the
Case: 25-1392 Document: 55 Page: 4 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 4 of 6 --

POP TOP CORP. v. RAKUTEN KOBO INC. 5
days later, which was September 16.5 See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A). The only way for Mr. Chandra to extend that
deadline would be to timely file either (a) a motion to ex-
tend the time for filing a notice of appeal, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 2107(c), or (b) a motion listed in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).
Mr. Chandra never moved to extend the time for filing a
notice of appeal. Instead, he filed (i) on August 29, a motion
for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied on September 19, and (ii) on October 25,
a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied on December 17. Neither of these mo-
tions extended the time to file an appeal under Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(4)(A). While a motion for reconsideration under
Rule 60 would be such a motion, it tolls the time for filing
a notice of appeal only when the Rule 60 motion is “filed
within the time allowed for filing a motion under Rule 59,”
which is 28 days from the date of the order to be reconsid-
ered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.
Here, that would have been September 12, 2024 (i.e., 28
days after the August 15, 2024 entry of judgment adding
Mr. Chandra). Thus, even if we consider Mr. Chandra’s
later denial of his motion for leave to file a motion for re-
consideration, S.A. 808, Mr. Chandra’s briefing on appeal
challenged only the final judgment issued on August 15,
2024. Accordingly, Mr. Chandra preserved only his chal-
lenges to the final judgment and forfeited any challenges
to the denial of his motion for leave to file a motion for re-
consideration. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex
Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our law is
well established that arguments not raised in the opening
brief are waived.”).
5 Because the thirtieth day, September 14, was a
Saturday, the rules permitted Mr. Chandra to file up until
two days later on Monday, September 16. See Fed. R. App.
P. 26(a)(1)(C).
Case: 25-1392 Document: 55 Page: 5 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 5 of 6 --

POP TOP CORP. v. RAKUTEN KOBO INC. 6
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration to be a
Rule 60 motion, it still would not extend the time to appeal
because Mr. Chandra did not file it until October 25, more
than a month after the September 12 deadline.
Therefore, both of Mr. Chandra’s notices of appeal, filed
January 15 and 17, 2025, were untimely. “[T]he timely fil-
ing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
“An untimely appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdic-
tion; the requirement cannot be waived, and is not subject
to equitable tolling.” Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d
913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Int’l Rectifier Corp. v.
IXYS Corp., 515 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he
jurisdictional rules lack equitable exceptions.”). Hence, we
lack jurisdiction and must dismiss Mr. Chandra’s appeal.6
III
We have considered Mr. Chandra’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated, we dismiss Mr. Chandra’s appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
Costs to Kobo.
6 While we cannot, therefore, decide Mr. Chandra’s
appeal, it would be wrong to draw from our disposition the
conclusion that he has raised issues of any merit. We deny
Mr. Chandra’s pending motions – for sanctions, ECF No.
30, and for a stay, ECF No. 48 – as moot.
Case: 25-1392 Document: 55 Page: 6 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 6 of 6 --