Federal Courts of Appeal only have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions. And as the Sixth Circuit recently observed, a decision generally is final “only after the district court ends litigation on the merits, leaving nothing to do but execute the judgment.” But general rules have specific exceptions, and the Sixth Circuit illustrated one of those exceptions in an opinion worth reading for the bourbon backstory alone.

In 1887, Colonel Edmund Haynes Taylor, Jr. opened the Old Taylor distillery in Kentucky and began distilling bourbon. The distillery was the “most magnificent plant of its kind in Kentucky,” resembling “a medieval limestone castle, surrounded by pergolas, pools, turrets, and gardens . . . .” But after Taylor died, the distillery fell into disrepair, closing in 1974. The tradename “Old Taylor,” however, lived on after Sazerac Brands bought the rights and began marketing bourbon under that name.

Forty years after the Old Taylor Distillery closed, Will Arvin and Wesley Murray formed Peristyle, LLC, bought the distillery and started getting ready to make bourbon. They billed the site as “‘the Former Old Taylor Distillery’ or simply, ‘Old Taylor.’”

Sazerac sued for trademark infringement; Peristyle counterclaimed on other trademark claims. The Eastern District of Kentucky granted summary judgment to Peristyle on all of Sazerac’s claims—but did not rule on any of Peristyle’s counterclaims. Even so, both parties appealed.

The Sixth Circuit flagged this procedural history before holding that it had jurisdiction even though the District Court had not ruled on Peristyle’s counterclaims. The Rules Enabling Act allows the civil rules to define what judgments are “final,” and “Civil Rule 54(b) gives a district judge this option: ‘When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . .the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties . . . .’” The only limit is that the district court must “expressly determine[] that there is no just reason for delay.” And the district court did just that when it entered judgment for Peristyle. “We thus [the Sixth Circuit concluded] have appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Peristyle on all of Sazerac’s claims against it.” (The Sixth Circuit went on to uphold that judgment.)

Read the Sixth Circuit’s opinion here.