Richard A Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC et al
Filing
477
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge A. Howard Matz. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that FINAL JUDGMENT with respect to Plaintiff's claims of infringement of the '840 Patent against WebEx Communications, Inc., Cisco WebEx LLC, and Cisco Systems, Inc., Adobe Systems Incorporated, Citrix Online, LLC and Citrix Systems, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Cisco, and Plaintiff shall take nothing of and from its claims of infringement of the '840 Patent against Cisco. All of Cisco's counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, without waiving Ciscos right to reassert any or all of these claims in this action or another, including but no t limited to in the event that the appellate court remands the case to the District Court or refuses to hear the merits of the appeal. The deadline for the parties to seek recovery of costs (including filing a Notice of Application and proposed Bill of Costs) and/or attorneys' fees is extended to thirty (30) days following issuance of the mandate in any appeal from this Final Judgment. Subject to paragraph 6, all claims between the parties have now been resolved. This is a final and appealable judgment. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
BRETT J. WILLIAMSON (S.B. #145235)
bwilliamson@omm.com
GEOFFREY H. YOST (S.B. #159687)
gyost@omm.com
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 760-9600
Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
JS-6
WILLIAM C. NORVELL, JR. (pro hac vice)
wcnorvell@bmpllp.com
SCOTT D. MARRS (pro hac vice)
smarrs@bmpllp.com
BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS L.L.P.
1300 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2500
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 623-0887
Facsimile: (713) 960-1527
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
Richard A. Williamson, on behalf of and as
Trustee for At Home Bondholders’ Liquidating
Trust
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
18
RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON, ON
BEHALF OF AND AS TRUSTEE
FOR AT HOME BONDHOLDERS’
LIQUIDATING TRUST,
Plaintiff,
19
20
21
22
23
Case No. CV11-02409 AHM (JEMx)
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
Judge: Hon. A. Howard Matz
v.
CITRIX ONLINE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
CV11-02409 AHM (JEMX)
.
1
2
3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
In the Court’s September 4, 2012 Claim Construction Order (ECF No. 353)
(“Markman Order”), the Court made the following rulings:
4
(a)
5
of U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840 (“the ‘840 patent”) is a means-plus-
6
function claim limitation with the following three functions: “(1)
7
receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the
8
audience member computer systems, (2) relaying the communications
9
to an intended receiving computer system, and (3) coordinating the
The “distributed learning control module” limitation in claim 8
10
operation of the streaming data module”;
11
(b)
12
step of ‘coordinating’ the operation of the streaming data module” and
13
therefore “[t]he ‘distributed learning control module’ term is indefinite
14
because the specification fails to disclose a corresponding structure”;
15
(c)
16
independent claim 1 of the ‘840 patent means “a pictorial map
17
illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can
18
interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience
19
member(s) by their locations on the map”; and
20
(d)
21
region” in independent claim 17 of the ‘840 patent means “first
22
graphical display comprising: . . . a display region for a pictorial map
23
illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can
24
interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience
25
member(s) by their locations on the map.”
“there is no structure identified in the specification for the final
the term “graphical display representative of a classroom” in
the term “first graphical display comprising . . . a classroom
26
27
28
2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
CV11-02409 AHM (JEMX)
1
2
On October 19, 2012, Plaintiff and Defendants made the following
stipulations:
3
(a)
4
any of its dependent claims, pursuant to the Court’s claim
5
construction rulings set forth above, because, under those rulings,
6
none of the Defendants’ accused products includes a “pictorial map
7
illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can
8
interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience
9
member(s) by their locations on the map.”
None of the Defendants infringe claim 1 of the ’840 patent or
10
(b)
11
the ’840 patent or any of its dependent claims 9-16, pursuant to the
12
Court’s claim construction rulings set forth above, because, under
13
those rulings, claim 8 and its dependent claims have been held invalid
14
as indefinite.
15
(c)
16
any of its dependent claims, pursuant to the Court’s claim
17
construction rulings set forth above, because, under those rulings,
18
none of the Defendants accused products includes a “first graphical
19
display comprising: . . . a display region for a pictorial map
20
illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can
21
interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience
22
member(s) by their locations on the map.”
None of the Defendants are liable for infringement of claim 8 of
None of the Defendants infringe claim 17 of the ’840 patent or
23
(ECF No. 470.) These stipulations were “to facilitate the immediate appeal of the
24
Court’s claim construction rulings,” limited to “those claim construction rulings
25
that are case dispositive and specifically discussed in [the] stipulation.” (Id.)
26
Defendants further stipulated that they would not move for costs and attorneys’ fees
27
until after resolution of the contemplated appeal. (Id.) Defendants contend that
28
there are additional grounds for non-infringement and invalidity of all of the claims
3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
CV11-02409 AHM (JEMX)
1
of the ‘840 patent, and reserve their right to assert such additional grounds in the
2
event that the appellate court remands the case to the District Court or refuses to
3
hear the merits of the appeal.
4
On October 22, 2012, the Court vacated all remaining deadlines pending the
5
Court’s decision on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, and ordered the parties
6
to submit a proposed form of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 consistent
7
with the terms of their stipulation. (ECF No. 472.)
8
9
10
11
On November 8, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion seeking reconsideration
of the Court’s claim construction rulings. (ECF No. 475.)
In accordance with the above, and good cause having been shown, the Court
hereby enters Final Judgment in this matter as follows:
12
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
13
1.
FINAL JUDGMENT with respect to Plaintiff’s claims of infringement
14
of the ’840 Patent against WebEx Communications, Inc., Cisco
15
WebEx LLC, and Cisco Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Cisco”) is
16
entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Cisco, and Plaintiff shall take
17
nothing of and from its claims of infringement of the ’840 Patent
18
against Cisco. All of Cisco’s counterclaims are dismissed without
19
prejudice, without waiving Cisco’s right to reassert any or all of these
20
claims in this action or another, including but not limited to in the
21
event that the appellate court remands the case to the District Court or
22
refuses to hear the merits of the appeal.
23
2.
FINAL JUDGMENT with respect to Plaintiff’s claims of infringement
24
of the ’840 Patent against Adobe Systems Incorporated (“Adobe”) is
25
entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Adobe, and Plaintiff shall take
26
nothing of and from its claims of infringement of the ’840 Patent
27
against Adobe. All of Adobe’s counterclaims are dismissed without
28
prejudice, without waiving Adobe’s right to reassert any or all of these
4
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
CV11-02409 AHM (JEMX)
1
claims in this action or another, including but not limited to in the
2
event that the appellate court remands the case to the District Court or
3
refuses to hear the merits of the appeal.
4
3.
FINAL JUDGMENT with respect to Plaintiff’s claims of infringement
5
of the ’840 Patent against Citrix Online, LLC and Citrix Systems, Inc.
6
(collectively, “Citrix”) is entered against Plaintiff and in favor of
7
Citrix, and Plaintiff shall take nothing of and from its claims of
8
infringement of the ’840 Patent against Citrix. All of Citrix’s
9
counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, without waiving
10
Citrix’s right to reassert any or all of these claims in this action or
11
another, including but not limited to in the event that the appellate
12
court remands the case to the District Court or refuses to hear the
13
merits of the appeal.
14
4.
FINAL JUDGMENT with respect to Plaintiff’s claims of infringement
15
of the ’840 Patent against Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) is
16
entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Microsoft, and Plaintiff shall
17
take nothing of and from its claims of infringement of the ’840 Patent
18
against Microsoft. All of Microsoft’s counterclaims are dismissed
19
without prejudice, without waiving Microsoft’s right to reassert any or
20
all of these claims in this action or another, including but not limited to
21
in the event that the appellate court remands the case to the District
22
Court or refuses to hear the merits of the appeal.
23
5.
FINAL JUDGMENT with respect to Plaintiff’s claims of infringement
24
of the ’840 Patent against International Business Machines
25
Corporation (“IBM”) is entered against Plaintiff and in favor of IBM,
26
and Plaintiff shall take nothing of and from its claims of infringement
27
of the ’840 Patent against IBM. All of IBM’s counterclaims are
28
dismissed without prejudice, without waiving IBM’s right to reassert
5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
CV11-02409 AHM (JEMX)
1
any or all of these claims in this action or another, including but not
2
limited to in the event that the appellate court remands the case to the
3
District Court or refuses to hear the merits of the appeal.
4
6.
The deadline for the parties to seek recovery of costs (including filing
5
a Notice of Application and proposed Bill of Costs) and/or attorneys’
6
fees is extended to thirty (30) days following issuance of the mandate
7
in any appeal from this Final Judgment.
8
9
7.
Subject to paragraph 6, all claims between the parties have now been
resolved. This is a final and appealable judgment.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED.
12
13
Dated: November 26, 2012
14
15
________________________
16
Hon. A. Howard Matz
United States District Court Judge
17
JS-6
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
CV11-02409 AHM (JEMX)
1
Dated:
November 26, 2012 /s/ Brett J. Williamson
Brett J. Williamson
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
William C. Norvell, Jr.
Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
Richard A. Williamson, As Trustee And On
Behalf Of At Home Bondholders’ Liquidating
Trust
Dated:
November 26, 2012 /s/ Frank E. Scherkenbach
Frank E. Scherkenbach
Fish & Richardson PC
Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants
Adobe Systems, Inc., Citrix Online LLC and
Citrix Systems, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation
Dated:
November 26, 2012 /s/ Douglas Kubehl___
Douglas Kubehl
Baker Botts L.L.P
Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants
WebEx Communications, Inc., Cisco WebEx
LLC, and Cisco Systems, Inc.
Dated:
November 26, 2012 /s/ Mark J. Abate
Mark J. Abate
Gregory S. Bishop
Goodwin Procter LLP
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
International Business Machines Corporation
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Attestation Pursuant to L.R. 5-4.3.4(a)(2)
23
24
I, Brett J. Williamson, attest that all signatories listed and on whose behalf this
filing is submitted concur in this filing’s content and have authorized this filing.
25
26
Dated: November 26, 2012
/s/ Brett J. Williamson
Brett J. Williamson
27
28
OMM_US:71146136.1
7
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
CV11-02409 AHM (JEMX)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?