Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

LoganTREE LP v. FITBIT INC., 16-cv-02443-RS. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170113999 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2017
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST TO VACATE SCHEDULING ORDER AND STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING DISMISSAL AND ORDER RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . WHEREAS on October 2, 2015, Plaintiff Logantree L.P. ("Logantree") filed this case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking damages, injunctive, and other relief, and alleging that Defendant Fitbit Inc. ("Fitbit") directly or indirectly infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 ("`576 patent"); WHEREAS on March 18, 2016, Fitbit fil
More

STIPULATED REQUEST TO VACATE SCHEDULING ORDER AND STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING DISMISSAL AND ORDER

WHEREAS on October 2, 2015, Plaintiff Logantree L.P. ("Logantree") filed this case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking damages, injunctive, and other relief, and alleging that Defendant Fitbit Inc. ("Fitbit") directly or indirectly infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 ("`576 patent");

WHEREAS on March 18, 2016, Fitbit filed its Counterclaims and Answer to Logantree's Complaint asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity for each of the asserted patent;

WHEREAS on May 6, 2016, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Fitbit's motion to transfer this litigation to the Northern District of California;

WHEREAS on August 4, 2016, this Court entered a Case Management Scheduling Order [Docket No. 61] in this case;

WHEREAS Fitbit filed petitions for inter partes review ("IPR") of the `576 patent with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 11, 2016 (IPR2017-00256) and November 12, 2016 (IPR2017-00258);

WHEREAS Plaintiff and Defendant settled this matter on November 16, 2016;

WHEREAS pursuant to the parties' settlement, the parties have agreed to dismiss this action with prejudice and to terminate IPR proceedings before the PTAB;

WHEREAS on December 13, 2016, the parties jointly requested authorization from the PTAB to file papers terminating the IPR;

WHEREAS the parties are awaiting assignment of a PTAB panel to FitBit's IPR in order to file papers terminating the IPR;

THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by Plaintiff and Defendant, through their designated counsel, that the Case Management and Scheduling Order should be vacated and that all proceedings in this action should be stayed until such time as the parties are able to dismiss this action and to terminate the IPR pursuant to the terms of their settlement.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer