Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Archipelago Lighting, Inc., 5:17-cv-01890-AB-SHK (2018)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20180907646 Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2018
Summary: CONSENT JUDGMENT ANDRE BIROTTE, JR. , District Judge . CONSENT JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. and Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. ("Plaintiffs" or "Seoul") and Defendant Archipelago Lighting, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Archipelago") (collectively, the "Parties"), have stipulated to entry of Consent Judgment against Archipelago and in favor of Seoul on Seoul's claim on patent infringement, and any potential defenses or counterclaims, including any defense of non-infringement or invali
More

CONSENT JUDGMENT

CONSENT JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. and Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. ("Plaintiffs" or "Seoul") and Defendant Archipelago Lighting, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Archipelago") (collectively, the "Parties"), have stipulated to entry of Consent Judgment against Archipelago and in favor of Seoul on Seoul's claim on patent infringement, and any potential defenses or counterclaims, including any defense of non-infringement or invalidity.

The stipulation is based upon the following:

1. Seoul alleges, and Archipelago does not dispute, that Archipelago has sold LED light bulbs that were manufactured by third parties and infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,627,435, US. Patent No. 9,093,627, US. Patent No. 9,577,157, US. Patent No. 7,700,960, US. Patent No. 8,168,988, US. Patent No. 8,860,331; US. Patent No. 8,829,552; US. Patent No. 8,716,946; US. Patent No. 9,716,210; US. Patent No. 7,951,626; US. Patent No. 9,450,155; US. Patent No. 8,664,638, US. Patent No. 7,804,098, US. Patent No. 8,188,489, US. Patent No. 7,646,031, US. Patent No. 8,901,575, US. Patent No. 8,299,476, US. Patent No. 7,768,020, US. Patent No. 8,084,774; US. Patent No. 8,680,533 (collectively, "the Patents in Suit") that are owned by Seoul.

2. Archipelago does not contest that the Patents in Suit are valid.

3. The Parties have agreed that a Consent Judgment should be entered in favor of Seoul and against Archipelago on Seoul's claim of patent infringement of the Patents in Suit.

NOW THEREFORE, without trial or adjudication of issues of fact or law, and upon consent of Defendant, the Court finds that there is good and sufficient cause to enter this Consent Judgment, and that it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:

1. U.S. Patent No. 9,627,435, US. Patent No. 9,093,627, US. Patent No. 9,577,157, US. Patent No. 7,700,960, US. Patent No. 8,168,988, US. Patent No. 8,860,331; US. Patent No. 8,829,552; US. Patent No. 8,716,946; US. Patent No. 9,716,210; US. Patent No. 7,951,626; US. Patent No. 9,450,155; US. Patent No. 8,664,638, US. Patent No. 7,804,098, US. Patent No. 8,188,489, US. Patent No. 7,646,031, US. Patent No. 8,901,575, US. Patent No. 8,299,476, US. Patent No. 7,768,020, US. Patent No. 8,084,774; US. Patent No. 8,680,533 (collectively, "the Patents in Suit") asserted by Plaintiffs Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. and Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Seoul") against Defendant Archipelago Lighting, Inc. ("Archipelago") in this matter are not invalid.

2. Archipelago has sold LED light bulbs that were manufactured by third parties and have been accused by Seoul in this case. Seoul contends, and Archipelago does not dispute, that such LED light bulbs infringe one or more of the Patents in Suit.

3. Seoul and Archipelago shall bear their own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.

4. The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Consent Judgment.

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