Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc.

Filing 334

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/17/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC.,

12

No. 11-cv-06637 RS

Plaintiff,
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

13
14
15
16

v.
MICROSTRATEGY, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________

17
18

The parties have stipulated, in light of the Claim Construction Clarification Order (Dkt.

19

326), that the accused products of defendant MicroStrategy, Inc. (MicroStrategy) do not infringe the

20

asserted claims of the U.S. patents owned by plaintiff Vasudevan Software, Inc. (VSi): numbers

21

6,877,006 (the ’006 patent), 7,167,864 (the ’864 patent), 7,720,861 (the ’861 patent), and 8,082, 268

22

(the ’268 patent. See Dkt. 331. In light of the stipulation, summary judgment of non-infringement

23

is hereby entered in favor of MicroStrategy and against VSi.

24

A number of motions are currently pending in this case. By separate concurrently filed order

25

granting MicroStrategy’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity, Dkt. 224, summary

26

judgment of invalidity is also entered in favor of MicroStrategy and against VSi. In addition,

27

another separate concurrently filed order denies in part and grants in part MicroStrategy’s Motion

28

for Summary Judgment of No Direct Infringement of the ’006, ’861, and ’268 Patents and No
NO. 11-CV-06637 RS
ORDER

1

Indirect Infringement of Any Patent-In-Suit, Dkt. 223. Furthermore, the following motions are

2

hereby denied without prejudice in the event of any remand:

3



VSi’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct, Dkt. 216.

4



VSi’s Motion for Summary Judgment on MicroStrategy’s Laches Defense, Dkt. 219.

5



VSi’s Motion to Exclude MicroStrategy’s Experts’ Opinions Regarding “Disparate
Databases,” Dkt. 259.

6


7

VSi’s Motion to Exclude MicroStrategy’s Damages Expert Sara Rinke and Opinions
Related to Non-Infringing Alternatives, Dkt. 276.

8

For the Northern District of California



MicroStrategy’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, Dkt. 221.

10

United States District Court

9



MicroStrategy’s Motion to Strike Portions of VSi’s Expert Reports, Dkt. 274.

11



MicroStrategy’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony, Dkt. 275.

12

All pending administrative motions to seal will be terminated without prejudice to being refiled at a

13

later time. This will not result in the filing of any provisionally sealed documents in the public

14

record.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: 10/17/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. 11-CV-06637 RS
ORDER

2