Free
Message: FWIW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Woodman Labs, Inc. dba GoPro,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:12-cv-02899-DMS(WVG)
STIPULATED PARTIAL
JUDGMENT
Assigned to the
Honorable Judge Dana M. Sabraw
Ctrm: 13A (Annex)
STIPULATED PARTIAL JUDGMENT
OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant e.Di
gital Corporation (“e.Digital”) and
Defendant and Counterclaimant Woodman Labs, Inc. dba GoPro
(“GoPro”) by
their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree, subject to the approval of the
Court, to the entry of the following Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-
Infringement:
1. In this action, e.Digital has alleged that certain GoPro product lines
(the “Accused Products”) infringe
independent claims 33 and 34, and dependent
claims 2, 10, 15 through 18, 23 through 26, and 28 through 31 of U.S. Patent No.
5,491,774 (“the ’774 patent”) patent, as set forth in e.Digital’s
First Amended
Complaint (Dkt#60) and e.Digital’s
Preliminary Infringement Contentions
(“PICs”) served on June 26, 2013.
2. On August 22, 2013, the Honorable Judge Dana M. Sabraw issued an
order granting GoPro
’s motion to apply collateral estoppel with respect to certain
terms contained in claims 33 and 34 of the ’774 patent and claims 2 and 5 of the
’108 patent (“Collateral Estoppel Order”). (Dkt #
64).
3. The Court found that the elements of issue preclusion were met in this
matter, and therefore e.Digital is precluded from relitigating the construction of the
limitation
“sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals” as
contained in claims 33 and 34 of the ’774 patent and claims 2 and 5 of the ’108
patent. (Dkt#64), as that limitation was previously construed by the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado in e.Digital Corp. v. Pentax of America,
Inc., C.A. No. 09-cv-
2578, to mean “that the device use only flash memory, not
RAM or any other memory system, which engaging the CODEC, DSP (as
applicable), and memory control functions, as well as storing the fully-manipulated
data.”
The Court further found that fairness and public policy favor application of
issue preclusion in this matter. (Dkt#64).
4. In view of
the construction of the limitation “sole memory of the
received processed sound electrical signals”
and the operation of the Accused
Products, the Parties agree that GoPro has not infringed and does not infringe
directly and/or indirectly, independent claims 33 and 34, and dependent claims 2,
3, 6, 10, 15 through 18, 23 through 26, and 28 through 31of the
‘774 patent, andany other claims depending therefrom. The parties therefore agree that the Courtmay enter a non-final partial judgment finding that GoPro has not and does not infringe directly and/or indirectly, independent claims 33 and 34, and dependent
claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 15 through 18, 23 through 26, and 28 through 31
of the ‘774 patent, and any other claims depending therefrom.
5.
It is provided, however, that if the Court’s findings as set forth in
Collateral Estoppel Order are reversed, changed, or modified on appeal such that
the matter is remanded for further consideration in any respect, the Parties reserve
all of their claims, arguments and defenses.
6. GoPro hereby dismisses without prejudice its counterclaims of patent
invalidity and noninfringement, as well as all other counterclaims and defenses,
with respect to the ’774 patent,
except as those claims relate to a claim for
attorneys’ fees and/or costs,
and further reserves the right to re-assert all such
counterclaims and defenses should e.Digital or any successor in interest accuse
GoPro
of infringement of the ’774 patent at any later point in time.
7. Accordingly, the Court enters this non-final Stipulated Partial
Judgment of Non-Infringement in favor of GoPro
on e.Digital’s claim forinfringement of claims
33 and 34 of the ’774 patent and any claims depending
therefrom. (Dkt# 1).
8. This non-final Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-Infringement is
without prejudice to the Parties’ rights to appeal the Court’s Collateral Estoppel
Order and/or any prior or future orders issued by the Court and is without prejudice of any claim for attorneys’ fees and/or costs under any basis, including without limitation Rule 11, Rule 54(d) and § 285.
9. All issues relating to fees and costs are reserved pending the outcome
of the Parties’ dispute concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,742,737, and the deadlines for
filing any and all motions seeking fees and/or costs shall be set by the Court after
the parties’ dispute as to the ʼ737patent is resolved.
10. For the sake of clarity, this Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-
Infringement is not a final judgment pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) and, if so necessary, is to be merged and/or become part of any final
judgment entered in this matter and may be incorporated as an exhibit thereto.
Dated: September 30, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply