Uniloc Luxembourg SA et al v. eClinical Works LLC
Filing
121
FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. (SEE ATTACHMENT FINAL JUDGMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS). The Court hereby enters JUDGMENT of non-infringement of the '526 Patent in favor of Pulse on Counts 1-3 of Uniloc's Complaint against Pulse. eClinicalWorks and Pulse, as prevailing parties, are entitled to recover costs pursuant to FRCP 54(d)(1) and C.D. Cal. L.R. 54 from Uniloc in an amount to be determined by the Court. The parties reserve all rights on appeal with respect to this Final Judgment. The Clerk is directed to enter this Judgment. (Case CLOSED). (jp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.
Los Angeles, California
12
13
MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.
LAWRENCE M. HADLEY (SBN 157728)
lhadley@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
ALAN P. BLOCK (SBN 143783)
ablock@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
JEFFREY HUANG (SBN 266774)
jhuang@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, California 90017
(213) 694-1200 - Telephone
(213) 694-1234 - Facsimile
CLOSED
ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
JIM ETHERIDGE (SBN 158629)
Jim@etheridgelaw.com
2600 East Southlake Blvd.
Southlake, TX 76092
(817) 470-7249 - Telephone
(817) 887-5950 - Facsimile
Attorneys for UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
and UNILOC USA, INC.
[SEE ATTACHED PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL COUNSEL]
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18
19
UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., and
UNILOC USA, INC.
Plaintiffs,
20
21
22
vs.
e CLINICAL WORKS, LLC AND
PULSE SYSTEMS INC.,
Defendants.
23
24
25
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV-13-3244- MWF (PLAx)
Case No. CV-13-3246-MWF (PLAx)
(CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS)
FINAL JUDGMENT
26
27
28
cv13-03244 MWF (PLAx)
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
John W. Amberg,
Email: jwamberg@bryancave.com
Shelly C. Gopaul,
Email: shelly.gopaul@bryancave.com
BRYAN CAVE LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Keith Aurzada,
Email: keith.aurzada@bryancave.com
BRYAN CAVE LLP
JPMorgan Chase Tower, Suite 3300
2200 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75201
10
11
MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.
Los angeles, California
12
13
14
15
Ryan T. Pumpian,
Email: ryan.pumpian@bryancave.com
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Atlantic Center
Fourteenth Floor
1201 W. Peachtree St., NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
Attorneys for Defendant eClinicalWorks, LLC
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Matthew L. Marshall
mmarshall@mpplaw.com
Derek A. Simpson
dsimpson@mmpplaw.com
MORRS POLICH & PURY LLP
1055 W. Seventh Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles Ca 90017
Don V. Kelly (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
dkelly@evans-dixon.com
EVANS & DIXON, LLC
Metropolitan Square
211 N. Broadway, Suite 2500
Saint Louis, Missouri 63102
Attorneys for Defendant Pulse Systems, Inc.
27
28
-211-CV-10122-MWF (PLAX)
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
1
This Court entered an Amended Order Granting Defendants’ Motions for
2
Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Denying as Moot Defendants’ Motion
3
for Summary Judgment of Invalidity effective August 29, 2013 (Dkt. 102, the
4
“Order”)). Although the Court directed the Clerk to treat the Order, and its entry on
5
the docket, as entry of judgment, the Order did not dispose of Defendants’
6
counterclaims. Therefore, consistent with the Order and pursuant to the parties’
7
stipulation regarding the Defendants’ Counterclaims, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
8
ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows.
9
(1)
On Uniloc Luxembourg SA and Uniloc USA, Inc.’s (“Uniloc”) claims for
relief against Defendant eClinicalWorks LLC (“eClinicalWorks”) for
11
direct patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Count One), indirect
12
MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.
Los angeles, California
10
patent infringement based on inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)
13
(Count Two), and contributory patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §
14
271(c) (Count Three), eClinicalWorks does not infringe U.S. Patent No.
15
5,682,526 (“the ’526 patent”). The Court hereby enters JUDGMENT of
16
non-infringement of the '526 Patent in favor of eClinicalWorks on Counts
17
1-3 of Uniloc's Complaint against eClinicalWorks.
18
(2)
On Uniloc’s claims for relief against Defendant Pulse Systems, Inc.
19
(“Pulse”) for direct patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Count
20
One), indirect patent infringement based on inducement under 35 U.S.C.
21
§ 271(b) (Count Two), and contributory patent infringement under 35
22
U.S.C. § 271(c) (Count Three), Pulse does not infringe the ’526 patent.
23
The Court hereby enters JUDGMENT of non-infringement of the '526
24
Patent in favor of Pulse on Counts 1-3 of Uniloc's Complaint against
25
Pulse.
26
(3)
27
On Count One of Pulse’s Counterclaim seeking a declaration that Pulse
has not infringed the ‘526 Patent, the Court’s judgment herein on
28
-1CV13-03244 MWF (PLAX)
921323
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
1
Uniloc’s claims renders this Count of the Counterclaim moot. Thus, this
2
Count is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
3
41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Pulse is free to assert the claims of this Count in the
4
event this matter is remanded for any reason, including for further
5
consideration.
6
(4)
With regard to Count One of eClinicalWorks’ Counterclaim and Count
7
Two of Pulse’s Counterclaim, both of which seek a declaration that the
8
‘526 Patent is invalid, the Court determined that its resolution of
9
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on non-infringement
rendered moot Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment of
11
Invalidity. Consistent with this ruling, Count One of eClinicalWorks'
12
MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.
Los angeles, California
10
Counterclaim and Count Two of Pulse's Counterclaim are dismissed
13
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
14
eClinicalWorks and Pulse are free to assert their respective claims of
15
these counts of the Counterclaims in the event this matter is remanded
16
for any reason, including for further consideration.
17
(5)
eClinicalWorks and Pulse, as prevailing parties, are entitled to recover
18
costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and C.D. Cal. L.R. 54 from
19
Uniloc in an amount to be determined by the Court.
20
(6)
21
The parties reserve all rights on appeal with respect to this Final
Judgment.
22
The Clerk is directed to enter this Judgment.
23
24
DATED: September 29, 2014
By: _____________________________
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald
United States District Court Judge
25
26
27
28
-2CV13-03244 MWF (PLAX)
921323
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
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?