the district court. See Id. The separability of the claims is thus central to determining whether or not there is just reason to delay certifying a partial final judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b). In patent cases to be decided by the Federal Circuit, the separability of claims relates both to the potential factual and legal overlap of the claims. See W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc., 975 F.2d at 864 (citing Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Eng’g & Foundry Co., 351 U.S. 445, 452, 76 S.Ct. 904, 100 L.Ed. 1311 (1956)) (the “factual relatedness of separate claims for relief is one of the factors a district court considers” in deciding wheth er to certify a final judgment for appeal under Rule 54(b)); Chaparral Commc’n, Inc. v. Boman Indus., Inc., 798 F.2d 456, 459 (Fed.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The matters involved in the first phase of a
recognizing with approval the practice following vacatur of some counts of conviction on appeal of increasing the defendants sentence on remaining counts to yield an aggregate sentence equal to the original aggregate imposed holding that issues underlying all counts were sufficiently intertwined that the separate appeal of the summary judgment counts would complicate the trial of the remaining counts holding that severance was not required when a defendant was charged with five counts of forcible rape two counts of felonious restraint three counts of kidnapping two counts of armed criminal action two counts of forcible sodomy one count of second degree assault one count of first degree robbery and one count of stealing holding that states appeal of trial courts dismissal of first count in a four count indictment under cj  12302cl was not ripe until final judgment on the remaining counts pled in the guilty plea and noting that upon imposition of the sentences on the remaining counts the situation  was ripe for the state to appeal or to perfect its earlier attempt to appeal holding that on direct appeal appellate court may remand for resentencing of all counts