EDIG v.Woodman Labs-All issues pending outcomeof dispute concerning patent 737 !

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

sman998

Rank: President [?]

Points: 96044 [?]

Votes: 125 Score: 3.9 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

EDIG v.Woodman Labs-All issues pending outcomeof dispute concerning patent 737 !

in response to

Re: FWIW..Oz..

richardo

posted on Sep 30, 2013 02:13PM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

e.Digital Corporation,

Plaintiff,

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.

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

21 Recommendations

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

Please to post a reply