Maury Microwave, Inc. v. Focus Microwaves, Inc.

Filing 230

FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Judge Margaret M. Morrow. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the following Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction in favor of Maury and against Focus is hereby granted. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bp)

1 GARY A. CLARK, Cal. Bar No. 65455
[e-mail]
2 DARREN M. FRANKLIN, Cal. Bar No. 210939
[e-mail]
3 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
4
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
5 Los Angeles, California 90071-1422
Telephone: [phone]
6 Facsimile: 213-620-1398

JS-6

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
MAURY MICROWAVE, INC.
8
Michael R. Annis (admitted pro hac vice)
9 [e-mail]
Robert Haldiman (admitted pro hac vice)
10 [e-mail]
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
11 190 Carondelet Plaza, 6th Floor
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
12 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
13
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
14 FOCUS MICROWAVES INC.
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

WESTERN DIVISION

18 MAURY MICROWAVE, INC., a
California corporation,
19
Plaintiff,
20
v.
21
FOCUS MICROWAVES INC., a
22 Canadian corporation also known as
Focus Micro Ondes Inc.,
23
Defendant.
24
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
25

Case No. CV 10-3902 MMM (JCGx)
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Hon. Margaret M. Morrow

26
27
28
SMRH:.1
SLC-6706640-1

-1-

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

WHEREAS, the Court entered its CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER on

1

2 July 30, 2012 (D.I. 227); and
3

WHEREAS, the Court entered its ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

4 JUDGMENT on July 30, 2012 (D.I. 228); and
5

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Maury Microwave, Inc.

6 (“Maury”) and Defendant and Counterclaimant Focus Microwaves Inc. (“Focus”)
7 have stipulated to entry of final judgment.
8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that

9 the following Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction in favor of Maury and
10 against Focus is hereby granted:
11

1.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action

12 under the laws of the United States concerning actions relating to federal questions,
13 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and patents, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), and under the Federal
14 Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.
15

2.

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c),

17

3.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties.

18

4.

Based upon this Court’s Claim Construction Order [D.I. 227],

16 and (d).

19 this Court held that Maury has not infringed any claim of Focus’ U.S. Patent
20 No. 6,674,293 (“the '293 patent”) as a result of making, using, offering for sale,
21 selling, importing, initializing, or calibrating the Series MT982M tuner.
22

5.

Based upon this Court’s Claim Construction Order, this Court

23 held that Maury has not infringed any claim of Focus’ U.S. Patent No. 7,034,629
24 (“the '629 patent) as a result of making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing,
25 initializing, or calibrating the Series MT982M tuner.
26

6.

Based upon this Court’s Claim Construction Order, this Court

27 held that the '629 patent, and each of its claims, is invalid.
28
SMRH:.1
SLC-6706640-1

-2-

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

7.

1

Based upon this Court’s Claim Construction Order, this Court

2 held that Focus has infringed claim 1 of Maury’s U.S. Patent No. 7,548,069 (“the
3 '069 patent”) as a result of its offer for sale to Northrop Grumman.
8.

4

Focus, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subsidiaries,

5 assignees, and acquirers, and those persons in active concert or participation with
6 them, are permanently enjoined from making, using, offering for sale, or selling an
7 IV probe or wave probe in the United States, or importing an IV probe or wave
8 probe into the United States, whether individually or as part of another device,
9 effective immediately and until the expiration of claim 1 of the ‘069 patent by
10 termination, lapse, abandonment, a final, non-appealable declaration of invalidity or
11 other means.
9.

12

In the event that claim 1 of the ‘069 patent expires, terminates, or

13 lapses as provided in paragraph 8, this injunction shall no longer be in force. Maury
14 Microwave shall retain the right to sue for infringement of any unexpired claims in
15 the '069 patent.
10.

16

Maury’s claim for a declaratory judgment of invalidity

17 respecting the ‘293 patent is dismissed, without prejudice.
11.

18

Maury’s claim for induced infringement respecting the ‘069

19 patent is dismissed, without prejudice.
12.

20

The Court shall have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms

21 of this Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction.
13.

22

Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees incurred in

23 connection with this action. Costs in the amount of $15,000.00 shall be allowed to
24 Maury as the prevailing party.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
SMRH:.1
SLC-6706640-1

-3-

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

14.

1

This Final Judgment disposes of all remaining claims in this

2 case.
3
4 Dated: August 30, 2012
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7 Presented by:
8

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

9
10

By

/s/ Darren M. Franklin
Darren M. Franklin

11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
MAURY MICROWAVE, INC.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SMRH:.1
SLC-6706640-1

-4-

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION