Adrian Rivera v. Remington Designs, LLC

Filing 358

JUDGMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Therefore, judgment is entered as follows: (1) Plaintiff's claim for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,232,871 against Defendants is dismissed with prejudice. (2) Plaintiff's claims for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,232,872 against Defendants is dismissed with prejudice. (3) Plaintiff, including his successors or assigns, are enjoined. (SEE JUDGMENT FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)

Download PDF
JS-6 1 2 4/15/2020 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 In Re: Adrian Rivera, et al. Lead Case No.: 2:16-cv-04676-JAK-SS ADRIAN RIVERA, JUDGMENT 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 v. REMINGTON DESIGNS, INC., 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant. 1 This case, LA CV16-04676-JAK-SSx: Adrian Rivera v. Remington 2 Designs, Inc. was previously consolidated with cases LA CV16-04699: Adrian 3 Rivera v. EMS Mind Reader, LLC; LA CV16-04753-JAK-SSx: Adrian Rivera v. 4 Eko Brands, LLC et al.; LA CV16-04702-JAK-SSx: Adrian Rivera v. LaMi 5 Products, Inc., et al.; LA CV16-04706-JAK-SSx: Adrian Rivera v. Solofill, LLC; 6 and LA CV16-07943-JAK-SSx: Adrian Rivera v. LaMi Products, Inc. 7 The Plaintiff in this case is Adrian Rivera. The remaining defendants are Eko 8 Brands LLC (“Eko”) and Solofill LLC (“Solofill”) (collectively, “Defendants”). 9 On April 1, 2020, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Plaintiff’s 10 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Therefore, judgment is entered as 11 follows: 12 1. Plaintiff’s claim for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 13 9,232,871 against Defendants is dismissed with prejudice. 14 2. Plaintiff’s claims for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 15 9,232,872 against Defendants is dismissed with prejudice. 16 3. Plaintiff, including his successors or assigns, are enjoined from 17 asserting U.S. patent numbers 9,232,871 or 9,232,872 against Defendants or 18 those in privity with Defendants (including, without limitation, Defendants’ 19 agents, suppliers, manufacturers, and customers) at any time and with respect to 20 all products imported, made, used, offered for sale, or sold at any time during 21 any enforceable term of the 871 and 872 patents. 22 4. Defendants’ counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non- 23 infringement and/or invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,232,871 are dismissed 24 without prejudice. 25 5. Defendants’ counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non- 26 infringement and/or invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,232,872 are dismissed 27 without prejudice. 28 1 6. Solofill’s counterclaims for patent misuse, inequitable conduct and 2 unclean hands are dismissed without prejudice. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: April 15, 2020 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _________________________________ John A. Kronstadt United States District Judge

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?