Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lufthansa Technik AG v. Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems Corp., C14-1821 RSM. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20160909b89 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 18, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION, MOTION, AND ORDER REGARDING STAY AND REQUEST FOR FINAL JUDGMENT RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . STIPULATION AND MOTION The parties, by their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows: 1. On July 20, 2016, the Court issued its Summary Judgment Order (Dkt. No. 148), granting Defendant Astronics Advanced Electronic System Corp.'s ("AES") motion for summary judgment; declaring Plaintiff Lufthansa Technik AG's ("LHT") U.S. Patent No. 6,016,016 invalid for indefiniten
More

STIPULATION, MOTION, AND ORDER REGARDING STAY AND REQUEST FOR FINAL JUDGMENT

STIPULATION AND MOTION

The parties, by their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows:

1. On July 20, 2016, the Court issued its Summary Judgment Order (Dkt. No. 148), granting Defendant Astronics Advanced Electronic System Corp.'s ("AES") motion for summary judgment; declaring Plaintiff Lufthansa Technik AG's ("LHT") U.S. Patent No. 6,016,016 invalid for indefiniteness; dismissing with prejudice LHT's claims against AES; striking AES's motion to compel as moot; and directing LHT and Defendant KID-Systeme GmbH's ("KID") to submit a Joint Status Report in seven days addressing the status of the case and the need for the Court to rule on the remaining Motions given the Summary Judgment Order.

2. On July 27, 2016, LHT and KID submitted their Joint Status Report (Dkt. No. 149).

3. In the Joint Status Report, LHT stated that it intends to appeal the Summary Judgment Order, which dismissed all of LHT's claims against AES with prejudice.

4. Because this action presents more than one claim for relief and because multiple parties are involved, LHT requests that the Court direct entry of a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to LHT's claims against AES with the express determination "that there is no just reason for delay."

5. KID does not oppose LHT's request for this entry of judgment under Rule 54(b).

6. LHT contacted counsel for AES, and AES takes no position on this motion.

7. LHT's claims against KID remain pending.

8. On January 29, 2016, KID moved to dismiss LHT's claims. (Dkt. No. 97.)

9. On April 26, 2016, this Court ordered KID to produce jurisdictional discovery to LHT. (Dkt. No. 124.) On June 1, 2016, the Court stayed all pending motions and discovery. (Dkt. No. 139.) In view of the stay, KID has not yet produced that jurisdictional discovery to LHT.

10. On May 12, 2016, KID brought a supplemental motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 129.)

11. LHT and KID jointly request that the Court stay proceedings on LHT's claims against KID, including the pending motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 97 and 129), and continue the stay of discovery in compliance with the Court's jurisdictional discovery order (Dkt. No. 124), pending the outcome of LHT's forthcoming appeal. LHT and KID will submit an updated joint status report to the Court within 14 days of the date the Federal Circuit issues its mandate in LHT's appeal.

ORDER

It is so ORDERED this 18th day of August 2016 that:

(a) Finding that there is no just reason for delay, the Court enters final judgment as to LHT's claims against AES;

(b) All proceedings on LHT's claims against KID, including KID's pending motions to dismiss (Dkt. #97 and #129) and the discovery in compliance with the Court's jurisdictional discovery order (Dkt. #124), are hereby stayed pending the outcome of LHT's forthcoming appeal of the judgment as to LHT's claims against AES; and

(c) LHT and KID will submit an updated joint status report to the Court within 14 days of the date the Federal Circuit issues its mandate in LHT's appeal.

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