Richard A Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC et al

Filing 533

JUDGMENT by Judge S. James Otero: For the reasons set forth in the Court's February 17, 2016 Order, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that: 1. FINAL JUDGMENT is entered that claims 1, 3-6, 17-18, and 20-23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,155, 840 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2. FINAL JUDGMENT is entered in Defendants' favor on all of Plaintiff's claims for relief. 3. The deadline for the parties to seek recovery of costs (including filing a Notice of Application a nd proposed Bill of Costs) and/or attorneys'fees is extended to thirty (30) days following issuance of the mandatein any appeal from this Final Judgment. 4. Subject to paragraph 3, all claims between the parties have now been resolved. This is a final and appealable judgment. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (vv)

JS-6

1
2
3

March 9, 2016

4

VC
P

5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON, ON
13 BEHALF OF AND AS TRUSTEE
FOR AT HOME BONDHOLDERS'
14 LIQUIDATING TRUST,

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,

15
16

Case No. CV 11-02409-SJO (JEMx)

v.

17 CITRIX ONLINE, LLC, et al.,
18
19
20

Defendants.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Patent

2 Infringement alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840 (the "'840 Patent")
3 by a number of Defendants;
4

WHEREAS, on September 4, 2012, United States District Court Judge A.

5 Howard Matz issued a Claim Construction Order construing eleven terms and
6 holding that claims 8 through 16 of the '840 Patent are invalid due to indefiniteness;
7

WHEREAS, Judge Matz entered a Stipulated Final Judgment, Plaintiff

8 appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and, on June 16, 2015, the
9 Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC et al., 792
10 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015), affirming that claims 8 through 16 of the '840 Patent are
11 invalid due to indefiniteness, and remanding on separate grounds;
12

WHEREAS, the remanded action was ultimately reassigned to this Court and,

13 on September 28, 2015, the Court set a schedule for briefing a motion for summary
14 judgment that all of the remaining asserted claims of the '840 Patent are invalid
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and stayed the action as to all other issues pending the
16 Court's ruling on the motion;
17

WHEREAS, on February 17, 2016, after considering all the arguments and

18 evidence presented in the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court issued an
19 Order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment of Unpatentability Under 35
20 U.S.C. § 101, finding by clear and convincing evidence that each of the remaining
21 asserted claims is unpatentable under Section 101 as a matter of law:
22

For the reasons set forth in the Court's February 17, 2016 Order, it is hereby

23 ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
24

1.

25
26

U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2.

27
28

FINAL JUDGMENT is entered that claims 1, 3-6, 17-18, and 20-23 of

FINAL JUDGMENT is entered in Defendants' favor on all of Plaintiff's
claims for relief.

3.

The deadline for the parties to seek recovery of costs (including filing
-2[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

a Notice of Application and proposed Bill of Costs) and/or attorneys'

2

fees is extended to thirty (30) days following issuance of the mandate

3

in any appeal from this Final Judgment.

4
5
6

4.

Subject to paragraph 3, all claims between the parties have now been
resolved.

This is a final and appealable judgment.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9 Dated: March 9, 2016
Hon. S. James Otero
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT