International Medical Devices, Inc., Menova International, Inc., James Elist v. Robert Cornell, Augmenta, LLC, Cornell Cosmetic Urology LLC, David Louis Nichols,…

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES, INC.,
MENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC., JAMES ELIST,
Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants
v.
ROBERT CORNELL, AUGMENTA, LLC, CORNELL
COSMETIC UROLOGY LLC, DAVID LOUIS
NICHOLS, HUCK MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
HANSMISCHE, HANS MISCHE LLC, RUN WANG,
ROBERT J. CORNELL, M.D., P.A., RICHARD B.
FINGER,
Defendants-Appellants
DOES, 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants
______________________
2025-1843, 2025-1863, 2025-1844
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:20-cv-03503-CBM-
RAO, Senior Judge Consuelo Bland Marshall.
______________________
Decided: April 17, 2026
______________________
Case: 25-1843 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 04/17/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES, INC. v. CORNELL 2
N ATHAN S. MAMMEN, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman &
Feldberg LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-cross-
appellants. Also represented by COLE THOMAS T IPTON;
RYAN G. BAKER, MAY CHAN, Waymaker LLP, Los Angeles,
CA.
RUSSELL STANLEY P OST , Beck Redden LLP, Houston,
TX, argued for defendant-appellants. Defendant-appellant
Richard B. Finger also represented by J ONATHAN
WEINBERG, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC.
K ELSI STAYART WHITE, Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing
PLLC, Houston, TX, for defendants-appellants Augmenta,
LLC, Cornell Cosmetic Urology LLC, Robert Cornell, Hans
Mische, Hans Mische LLC, Huck Medical Technologies
Inc., David Louis, Nichols, Robert J. Cornell, M.D., P.A.
and Run Wang. Also represented by WEINING BAI, J ASON
S. MCMANIS .
______________________
Before D YK, REYNA, and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
D YK, Circuit Judge.
I
This case is related to another appeal, No. 2025-1580,
of the same district court case which we decide today in a
separate opinion. No. 2025-1580 concerns the district
court’s judgment of liability. This case concerns costs and
attorneys’ fees.
As we describe in the companion opinion, Plaintiffs In-
ternational Medical Devices, Inc. (“IMD”), Menova Inter-
national, Inc. and Dr. James Elist (collectively “plaintiffs”),
manufacture and sell the Penuma® cosmetic penile im-
plant. Plaintiffs sued Dr. Robert Cornell, Mr. Richard Fin-
ger, Dr. Run Wang, and a number of associated individuals
and entities (collectively “defendants”) in the Central Dis-
trict of California, asserting misappropriation of trade
Case: 25-1843 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 04/17/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES, INC. v. CORNELL 3
secrets, breach of contract, and counterfeiting. The district
court entered judgment that defendants misappropriated
each trade secret, that Dr. Cornell breached a non-disclo-
sure-agreement contract, that defendants owed a reasona-
ble royalty and exemplary damages for the trade-secret
and breach-of-contract claims, that Dr. Wang owed nomi-
nal damages for breaching a consulting services agree-
ment, that Dr. Cornell and his medical practice owed
damages for a counterfeiting claim, and that two of defend-
ants’ patents were invalid for failure to name an inventor.
The district court also entered a permanent injunction en-
joining defendants from using the trade secrets.
In the companion case, we reverse the district court
judgment as to the trade-secret, Dr. Cornell’s breach-of-
contract, and patent claims but affirm as to the counterfeit-
ing claim. The defendants did not appeal certain aspects
of the district court judgment, including a judgment of lia-
bility for copyright infringement and Dr. Wang’s breach of
contract.
II
This case involves the taxation of $589,343 in costs to
plaintiffs and the refusal of the district court to grant at-
torneys’ fees in a post-judgment order in the same case.
Defendants appeal the taxation of costs if we vacate or re-
verse any part of the underlying judgment in the compan-
ion case, as we have. Plaintiffs cross-appeal the district
court’s denial of attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
III
Defendants argue that if we vacate or reverse any part
of the underlying judgment in the companion case, we
should also vacate or reverse the costs judgment. Plaintiffs
respond that because defendants have not appealed certain
claims on which plaintiffs prevailed (as to copyright in-
fringement and breach of contract by Dr. Wang), plaintiffs
Case: 25-1843 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 04/17/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES, INC. v. CORNELL 4
will remain the prevailing party, no matter the outcome of
the companion case. Plaintiffs’ position is also supported
to a limited extent by our decision affirming judgment of
the counterfeiting claim.
A party prevails when “actual relief on the merits of his
claim materially alters the legal relationship between the
parties.” Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111–12 (1992).
We have held that there can be only one prevailing party,
even if no party prevails on all claims. Shum v. Intel Corp.,
629 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (examining Ninth Cir-
cuit law). But in Shum, we explained that a district court
may “award[] costs to each party with respect to the claims
on which they prevailed, then netting those sums to arrive
at [a] final figure.” Id. at 1364. The Ninth Circuit rule is
similar. Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106, 1133 (9th Cir.
2018) (citing Shum, 629 F.3d at 1364).
Thus, even if the plaintiffs remain the prevailing party
by virtue of having prevailed on some claims altering the
legal relationship between the parties, it does not follow
that the award of costs must stand. Our resolution of the
companion case alters which party prevailed on several
claims, including the claims that underlaid the vast major-
ity of the monetary judgment. The district court should
consider, as in Shum and Williams, how the disposition of
each claim affects the net taxation of costs. Additionally,
some of the defendants against whom costs have been as-
sessed, including Mr. Richard Finger, are not liable for any
judgments following the disposition of the companion case.
We therefore vacate the costs judgment to allow the district
court to consider the allocation of net costs against the de-
fendants liable for each claim.
IV
Plaintiffs cross-appeal the denial of fees under the Cal-
ifornia Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which provides that if
“willful or malicious misappropriation exists, the court
Case: 25-1843 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 04/17/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES, INC. v. CORNELL 5
may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the pre-
vailing party.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.4.
In the companion case, we reverse the judgment as to
all defendants’ alleged misappropriation. There is thus no
willful or malicious misappropriation on which to found a
claim for fees. We accordingly dismiss plaintiffs’ cross-ap-
peal as moot. See Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp.
(Can.), 803 F.3d 620, 625–26 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (dismissing a
cross-appeal for enhanced damages as moot following re-
versal of the underlying judgment).
CONCLUSION
We vacate the district court’s award of costs and re-
mand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We dismiss plaintiffs’ cross-appeal for attorneys’ fees.
VACATED-IN-PART, REMANDED-IN-PART,
DISMISSED-IN-PART.
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1843 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 04/17/2026

-- 5 of 5 --