STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2); ORDER

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, "Philips") and Defendant Visual Land, Inc. ("Visual Land") have entered into a confidential settlement agreement resolving all claims between them in this action ("the Philips/Visual Land Claims").

Therefore, Philips and Visual Land jointly file this motion under Civil L.R. 7-12 asking the Court to enter the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal herewith, which dismisses the Philips/Visual Land Claims with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) ("Rule 41(a)(2)").

Of note, lead counsel for Philips has met and conferred with counsel for the remaining parties to this action, namely, Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively, "Microsoft") regarding this motion, and Microsoft's counsel has indicated that Microsoft does not oppose this motion.

BRIEF PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Philips initially filed this patent infringement action in the District of Delaware, asserting, among other things, that certain of Visual Land's tablet computers include hardware and/or software containing functionality covered by one more claims of the patents-in-suit.

Subsequently, Microsoft filed a Complaint in Intervention as the supplier of the operating system incorporated into Visual Land's accused products. In their collective pleadings, Microsoft asserts against Philips counterclaims of non-infringement under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202, and Philips asserts against Microsoft claims of direct and indirect infringement. D.I.'s 72, 78, 82, 88, 89, 128.

On March 27, 2018, this action was transferred to this Court from the District of Delaware, along with four other similar patent infringement actions between Philips, Microsoft, and various other defendants. D.I. 312.1 The Court subsequently held an Initial Case Management Conference in all of these cases on June 26, 2018. D.I. 363.

As indicated, with the present motion, Philips and Visual Land jointly move the Court to dismiss all of the Philips/Visual Land Claims with prejudice in view of their confidential settlement agreement. However, this motion does not seek any relief with respect to the pending claims between Philips and Microsoft.

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 41(a)(2), after an opposing party has served an answer or motion for summary judgment, "an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Moreover, a "plaintiff may invoke Rule 41(a) to dismiss fewer than all of the parties to an action." Schaeffer v. Gregory Vill. Partners, L.P., 2016 WL 9185388, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016) (citing Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1991)).

The decision to grant or deny a request to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is within this Court's sound discretion. Id. (citing Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980)). However, "[a] district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result." Id. (quoting Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001)). Legal prejudice means "prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument." Id. (quoting Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)).

Here, Microsoft has indicated that it does not oppose this motion. And, nothing in this motion seeks to affect, or requests the Court take any action with respect to, any of the claims pending between Philips and Microsoft in this action or in any of the other co-pending actions before this Court. As a result, Microsoft will suffer no legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal of the Philips/Visual Land Claims.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the parties respectively request that the Court grant this motion and enter the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal filed herewith as the order of this Court.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, "Philips") and by Defendant Visual Land, Inc. ("Visual Land"), subject to the approval of the Court that:

1. All claims asserted by Philips against Visual Land or by Visual Land against Philips in the above-captioned case are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

2. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.

ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from counsel for Visual Land, Inc.

ORDER

The Court has now considered Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, "Philips") and Defendant Visual Land, Inc.'s ("Visual Land") Stipulated Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Having considered the moving papers before it and being fully advised, the Court finds and orders as follows:

The Motion is GRANTED in its entirety. The Stipulation of Dismissal filed with the Motion is entered as the Order of this Court, and all claims asserted by Philips against Visual Land or by Visual Land against Philips in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the terms of that stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.