Message: ironic
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Futurewei Technologies, Inc. dba
Huawei Technologies (USA); Huawei
Device USA, Inc.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:13-cv-00783-DMS-WVG
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT
Assigned to the
Honorable Judge Dana M. Sabraw
Ctrm: 13A (Annex)
Futurewei Technologies, Inc. dba
Huawei Technologies (USA); Huawei
Device USA, Inc.,
Counterclaimants,
v.
e.Digital Corporation,
Counter Defendant.
STIPULATED JUDGMENT
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”);
Defendants Futurewei Technologies, Inc. and Huawei Device USA, Inc.
(collectively referred to as “Huawei”) by their undersigned counsel, hereby
stipulate and agree, subject to the approval of the Court, to the entry of the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Futurewei Technologies, Inc. dba
Huawei Technologies (USA); Huawei
Device USA, Inc.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:13-cv-00783-DMS-WVG
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT
Assigned to the
Honorable Judge Dana M. Sabraw
Ctrm: 13A (Annex)
Futurewei Technologies, Inc. dba
Huawei Technologies (USA); Huawei
Device USA, Inc.,
Counterclaimants,
v.
e.Digital Corporation,
Counter Defendant.
STIPULATED JUDGMENT
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”);
Defendants Futurewei Technologies, Inc. and Huawei Device USA, Inc.
(collectively referred to as “Huawei”) by their undersigned counsel, hereby
stipulate and agree, subject to the approval of the Court, to the entry of the
following Stipulated Judgment of Non-Infringement:
1. In this action, e.Digital has alleged that certain Huawei product lines
(the “Accused Products”) infringe independent claims 33 and 34 and dependent
claims 2, 3, 6-8,10, 15-16, 18, 23-26, and 28-31 of U.S. Patent No. 5,491,774 (“the
’774 patent”) patent and independent claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108 (“the
’108 patent”), as set forth in e.Digital’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions
(“PICs”) served on June 26, 2013. Further, e.Digital has alleged that the “Accused
Products” also infringe its U.S. Patent Nos. 5,742,737 (“the ’737 patent”), and
5,842,170 (“the ’170 patent”), as set forth more fully in the Complaint. Huawei
counterclaimed alleging, among other things, invalidity of all of the asserted
claims.
2. On August 22, 2013, this Court issued an order granting Huawei’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 preclude e.Digital from relitigating the construction of the term “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). The
Court further found that fairness and public policy favor application of issue
preclusion in this matter. (Dkt#64).
4. Thereafter, the Parties reached a full and final settlement as to their
respective claims arising under the ‘737 and ‘170 patents only.
5. In view of the foregoing, the Parties have therefore agreed that the
Court may enter this Stipulated Final Judgment finding that Huawei has not
infringed and does not infringe directly and/or indirectly, independent claims 33
and 34 and dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8,10, 15-16, 18, 23-26, and 28-31 of the ‘774
patent, independent claim 2 of the ‘108 patent, and any other claims depending
1. In this action, e.Digital has alleged that certain Huawei product lines
(the “Accused Products”) infringe independent claims 33 and 34 and dependent
claims 2, 3, 6-8,10, 15-16, 18, 23-26, and 28-31 of U.S. Patent No. 5,491,774 (“the
’774 patent”) patent and independent claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108 (“the
’108 patent”), as set forth in e.Digital’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions
(“PICs”) served on June 26, 2013. Further, e.Digital has alleged that the “Accused
Products” also infringe its U.S. Patent Nos. 5,742,737 (“the ’737 patent”), and
5,842,170 (“the ’170 patent”), as set forth more fully in the Complaint. Huawei
counterclaimed alleging, among other things, invalidity of all of the asserted
claims.
2. On August 22, 2013, this Court issued an order granting Huawei’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 preclude e.Digital from relitigating the construction of the term “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). The
Court further found that fairness and public policy favor application of issue
preclusion in this matter. (Dkt#64).
4. Thereafter, the Parties reached a full and final settlement as to their
respective claims arising under the ‘737 and ‘170 patents only.
5. In view of the foregoing, the Parties have therefore agreed that the
Court may enter this Stipulated Final Judgment finding that Huawei has not
infringed and does not infringe directly and/or indirectly, independent claims 33
and 34 and dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8,10, 15-16, 18, 23-26, and 28-31 of the ‘774
patent, independent claim 2 of the ‘108 patent, and any other claims depending
6. Huawei has therefore agreed to dismisses, without prejudice, its
remaining counterclaims of invalidity, as well as all other counterclaims and
defenses, it currently has with respect to the ’774 and’108 patents only. Huawei,
however, reserves the right to re-assert any and all such counterclaims and
defenses should e.Digital or any successor in interest accuse Huawei of
infringement of the ’774 and/or the ’108 patent at any later point in time.
7. Further, 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, each of the above named Parties
reserve any and all of their claims, arguments and defenses.
8. Accordingly, the Court hereby enters this Final Judgment as follows:
a) Judgment in favor of Huawei on e.Digital’s claims for
infringement of claims 33 and 34 of the ’774 patent, claims 2 and 5 of the
’108 patent, and any other claims depending therefrom (Dkt# 1) as a result
of the application of the Collateral Estoppel Order.
b) Dismissal with prejudice of e.Digital’s claims of patent
infringement with respect to the ‘170 and ‘737 patents as asserted in the
Complaint against the remaining defendants, Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
and, Huawei Device USA, Inc.
c) Dismissal with prejudice of Futurewei Technologies, Inc. and
Huawei Device USA, Inc. counterclaims asserted in their June 12, 2013
answers as to the ‘170 and ‘737 patents only. (Dkt# 25, 27).
d) Dismissal with prejudice as to the Parties claims and
counterclaims arising under the ‘737 and ‘170 patents.
9. Nothing by way of these dismissals as to the ‘737 and ‘170 patents is
meant or intended by the parties to preclude the filing of an appeal by any of the
parties with respect to the Collateral Estoppel Order or any stipulated judgment
remaining counterclaims of invalidity, as well as all other counterclaims and
defenses, it currently has with respect to the ’774 and’108 patents only. Huawei,
however, reserves the right to re-assert any and all such counterclaims and
defenses should e.Digital or any successor in interest accuse Huawei of
infringement of the ’774 and/or the ’108 patent at any later point in time.
7. Further, 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, each of the above named Parties
reserve any and all of their claims, arguments and defenses.
8. Accordingly, the Court hereby enters this Final Judgment as follows:
a) Judgment in favor of Huawei on e.Digital’s claims for
infringement of claims 33 and 34 of the ’774 patent, claims 2 and 5 of the
’108 patent, and any other claims depending therefrom (Dkt# 1) as a result
of the application of the Collateral Estoppel Order.
b) Dismissal with prejudice of e.Digital’s claims of patent
infringement with respect to the ‘170 and ‘737 patents as asserted in the
Complaint against the remaining defendants, Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
and, Huawei Device USA, Inc.
c) Dismissal with prejudice of Futurewei Technologies, Inc. and
Huawei Device USA, Inc. counterclaims asserted in their June 12, 2013
answers as to the ‘170 and ‘737 patents only. (Dkt# 25, 27).
d) Dismissal with prejudice as to the Parties claims and
counterclaims arising under the ‘737 and ‘170 patents.
9. Nothing by way of these dismissals as to the ‘737 and ‘170 patents is
meant or intended by the parties to preclude the filing of an appeal by any of the
parties with respect to the Collateral Estoppel Order or any stipulated judgment
based thereon.
10. Each Party shall bear its own costs and fees.
Dated:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10. Each Party shall bear its own costs and fees.
Dated:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply