Filed: Feb. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2018
Summary: CONSENT JUDGMENT OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT WILLIAM H. ORRICK, III , District Judge . The parties having agreed to a settlement of the claims between them, and having stipulated to entry of this Consent Judgment, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the above-captioned action and personal jurisdiction over the parties, and venue is proper in this District. This Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of executing and enf
Summary: CONSENT JUDGMENT OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT WILLIAM H. ORRICK, III , District Judge . The parties having agreed to a settlement of the claims between them, and having stipulated to entry of this Consent Judgment, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the above-captioned action and personal jurisdiction over the parties, and venue is proper in this District. This Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of executing and enfo..
More
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, III, District Judge.
The parties having agreed to a settlement of the claims between them, and having stipulated to entry of this Consent Judgment, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the above-captioned action and personal jurisdiction over the parties, and venue is proper in this District. This Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of executing and enforcing the terms of this Consent Judgment.
2. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Codexis, Inc. ("Codexis") against Defendants EnzymeWorks, Inc. (U.S.) and Suzhou Hanmei Biotechnology Co. Ltd, d/b/a EnzymeWorks, Inc. (China) (collectively, "EnzymeWorks") (collectively, the "Corporate Defendants") on Counts I through X of the Second Amended Complaint in the above-captioned action as follows:
a. EnzymeWorks has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,088,610; 8,415,127; 7,820,421; 8,071,347; 8,227,229; 8,293,507; 8,470,564; 8,852,900; 8,932,838; and 9,133,445 (the "Patent-in-Suit").
b. The Patents-in-Suit are not invalid.
3. This Consent Judgment is final, enforceable, and non-appealable.
4. Each party will bear its own fees, costs, and expenses.
ATTESTATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
