Filed: Feb. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PARTIAL JUDGMENT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MARY M. ROWLAND , District Judge . 1. Plaintiffs Otter Products LLC and TreeFrog Developments, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") respectfully request that the Court enter partial judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), based on the dismissal with prejudice of the causes of action pled in Fellowes' Countercomplaint (Dkt. 30). 2. On February 16, 2020, Defendant Fellowes, Inc. ("Defendant") stipulated to dismissal with prejudic
Summary: MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PARTIAL JUDGMENT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MARY M. ROWLAND , District Judge . 1. Plaintiffs Otter Products LLC and TreeFrog Developments, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") respectfully request that the Court enter partial judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), based on the dismissal with prejudice of the causes of action pled in Fellowes' Countercomplaint (Dkt. 30). 2. On February 16, 2020, Defendant Fellowes, Inc. ("Defendant") stipulated to dismissal with prejudice..
More
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PARTIAL JUDGMENT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MARY M. ROWLAND, District Judge.
1. Plaintiffs Otter Products LLC and TreeFrog Developments, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") respectfully request that the Court enter partial judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), based on the dismissal with prejudice of the causes of action pled in Fellowes' Countercomplaint (Dkt. 30).
2. On February 16, 2020, Defendant Fellowes, Inc. ("Defendant") stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of "the causes of action pled in the counterclaim of Docket Entry 30." (Dkt. 48). On February 20, 2020, the Court dismissed with prejudice "the causes of action pled in the counterclaim of Docket Entry 30." (Dkt 50).
3. Fellowes' Countercomplaint (Dkt. 30) pled three causes of action: (1) infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,084,502; (2) infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,853,674; and (3) the non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,342,325; 8,393,466; 8,526,180; 8,531,834; 8,564,950; 9,549,598; 9,660,684; and 9,498,033 ("Plaintiffs' Asserted Patents"). (Dkt. 30, at Countercomplaint).
4. Rule 54(b) authorizes the Court to "direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims . . . if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Furthermore, dismissal of a claim with prejudice "is a judgment on the merits." E.g., Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
5. Fellowes' dismissal of its claims with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the underlying merits of those dismissed claims. As such, judgment should now be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant with regards to three sets of claims:
a. Defendant's claim of infringement of the '502 and '674 Patents (Dkt. 30, Counts I and II, respectively);
b. Defendant's declaratory judgment claim of non-infringement and invalidity of Plaintiffs' Asserted Patents (Dkt. 30, Count III);
c. Plaintiffs' claim of infringement of Plaintiffs' Asserted Patents (Dkt. 22, Counts IV to XI).
6. In light of the above facts and law, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiffs' favor and against Defendant on Fellowes' prejudicially dismissed Counterclaim Counts I through III as well as on Plaintiffs' corresponding claims of the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 22), Counts IV-XI.
