UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A. v. E CLINICAL WORKS, LLC, CV-13-3244-MWF (PLAx) (2014)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20140930953
Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 29, 2014
Summary: FINAL JUDGMENT MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, District Judge. This Court entered an Amended Order Granting Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Denying as Moot Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity effective August 29, 2013 (Dkt. 102, the "Order")). Although the Court directed the Clerk to treat the Order, and its entry on the docket, as entry of judgment, the Order did not dispose of Defendants' counterclaims. Therefore, consistent with the Order and pursua
Summary: FINAL JUDGMENT MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, District Judge. This Court entered an Amended Order Granting Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Denying as Moot Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity effective August 29, 2013 (Dkt. 102, the "Order")). Although the Court directed the Clerk to treat the Order, and its entry on the docket, as entry of judgment, the Order did not dispose of Defendants' counterclaims. Therefore, consistent with the Order and pursuan..
More
FINAL JUDGMENT
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, District Judge.
This Court entered an Amended Order Granting Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Denying as Moot Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity effective August 29, 2013 (Dkt. 102, the "Order")). Although the Court directed the Clerk to treat the Order, and its entry on the docket, as entry of judgment, the Order did not dispose of Defendants' counterclaims. Therefore, consistent with the Order and pursuant to the parties' stipulation regarding the Defendants' Counterclaims, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows.
(1) On Uniloc Luxembourg SA and Uniloc USA, Inc.'s ("Uniloc") claims for relief against Defendant eClinicalWorks LLC ("eClinicalWorks") for direct patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Count One), indirect patent infringement based on inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Count Two), and contributory patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) (Count Three), eClinicalWorks does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,682,526 ("the '526 patent"). The Court hereby enters JUDGMENT of non-infringement of the '526 Patent in favor of eClinicalWorks on Counts 1-3 of Uniloc's Complaint against eClinicalWorks.
(2) On Uniloc's claims for relief against Defendant Pulse Systems, Inc. ("Pulse") for direct patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Count One), indirect patent infringement based on inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Count Two), and contributory patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) (Count Three), Pulse does not infringe the '526 patent. The Court hereby enters JUDGMENT of non-infringement of the '526 Patent in favor of Pulse on Counts 1-3 of Uniloc's Complaint against Pulse.
(3) On Count One of Pulse's Counterclaim seeking a declaration that Pulse has not infringed the '526 Patent, the Court's judgment herein on Uniloc's claims renders this Count of the Counterclaim moot. Thus, this Count is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Pulse is free to assert the claims of this Count in the event this matter is remanded for any reason, including for further consideration.
(4) With regard to Count One of eClinicalWorks' Counterclaim and Count Two of Pulse's Counterclaim, both of which seek a declaration that the '526 Patent is invalid, the Court determined that its resolution of Defendants' motions for summary judgment on non-infringement rendered moot Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity. Consistent with this ruling, Count One of eClinicalWorks' Counterclaim and Count Two of Pulse's Counterclaim are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). eClinicalWorks and Pulse are free to assert their respective claims of these counts of the Counterclaims in the event this matter is remanded for any reason, including for further consideration.
(5) eClinicalWorks and Pulse, as prevailing parties, are entitled to recover costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and C.D. Cal. L.R. 54 from Uniloc in an amount to be determined by the Court.
(6) The parties reserve all rights on appeal with respect to this Final Judgment.
The Clerk is directed to enter this Judgment.
Source: Leagle
