Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc.

Filing 338

Joint Stipulation and Order of Non-Infringement. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/21/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

Brooke A. M. Taylor, WSBA 33190 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Jordan W. Connors, WSBA 41649 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, Washington 98101-3000
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6

10

Stephen E. Morrissey, CA Bar 187865
[e-mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11

Plaintiff Vasudevan Software, Inc.

7
8
9

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13
14
15

VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC.,

Case No. 3:11-06637-RS-PSG

Plaintiff,

16

JOINT STIPULATION OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

17

vs.

18

MICROSTRATEGY SOFTWARE INC.,
Hon. Richard Seeborg
Defendant.

19
20
21

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Vasudevan Software, Inc. (“VSi”) has accused Defendant

22

MicroStrategy Software Inc. (“MicroStrategy”) of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,877,006 (“the

23

‘006 Patent”); 7,167,864 (“the ‘864 Patent”); 7,720,861 (“the ‘861 Patent”); and 8,082,268 (“the

24

‘268 Patent”);

25
26

WHEREAS MicroStrategy has denied infringement of the ‘006 Patent, the ‘864 Patent,
the ‘861 Patent, and the ‘268 Patent;

27
28
JOINT STIPULATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

-1-

Case No. 3:11-cv-06637 RS

1

WHEREAS the term “disparate [] databases” appears in each asserted claim of the ‘006

2

Patent, the ‘864 Patent, and the ‘861 Patent and the term “incompatible databases of different

3

types” appears in each asserted claim of the ‘268 Patent;

4

WHEREAS on September 19, 2012, the Court issued its Claim Construction Order (Dkt.

5

No. 97) construing the term “disparate [] databases” to mean “databases having an absence of

6

compatible keys or record identifier columns of similar value or format in the schemas or

7

structures that would otherwise enable linking data”;

8

WHEREAS on September 19, 2013, the Court issued its Claim Construction Clarification

9

Order (Dkt. No. 326) holding that “the construction of “Disparate [] databases” as “databases

10

having an absence of compatible keys or record identifier columns of similar value or format in

11

the schemas or structures that would otherwise enable linking data” is clarified to read “databases

12

having an absence of compatible keys and an absence of record identifier columns of similar

13

value and an absence of record identifier columns of similar format in the schemas or structures

14

that would otherwise enable linking data;”

15

WHEREAS the Court’s Claim Construction Clarification Order further held that VSi is

16

estopped from arguing that “incompatible databases of different types” means something different

17

than the Court’s construction of “disparate [] databases;”

18
19
20
21
22
23

WHEREAS Civil L.R. 54-1(a) requires that Bill of Costs be served and filed no later than
14 days after entry of judgment;
WHEREAS Civil L.R. 54-5 requires that a Motion for Fees be served and filed no later
than 14 days after entry of judgment;
WHEREAS VSi has stated that it intends to appeal the Court’s forthcoming entry of a
judgment of non-infringement based on this stipulation;

24

WHEREAS MicroStrategy has requested, and VSi has agreed, that in order to promote

25

judicial efficiency and to conserve litigation costs, the deadlines for the Bill of Costs and Motion

26

for Fees (including Motions for Fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285) be delayed until 14 days after

27

the Federal Circuit’s issuance of the mandate regarding VSi’s appeal of the Court’s final

28

judgment; and
JOINT STIPULATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

-2-

Case No. 3:11-cv-06637 RS

1

WHEREAS, the extension requested would not change any other date set by the Court.

2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED amongst VSi and

3

MicroStrategy that, based on the Court’s constructions of “disparate [] databases” and the Court’s

4

ruling that VSi is estopped from arguing that “incompatible databases of different types” means

5

something different than the Court’s construction of “disparate [] databases, MicroStrategy’s

6

accused products and services do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘006 Patent, the ‘864

7

Patent, the ‘861 Patent and the ‘268 Patent.

8

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED amongst VSi and MicroStrategy that,

9

the deadline for a Bill of Costs or a Motion for Fees (including any Motion for Fees pursuant to

10

35 U.S.C. § 285) be delayed until 14 days after the Federal Circuit’s issuance of the mandate

11

regarding VSi’s appeal of this Court’s final judgment.

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

Dated: October 16, 2013
By:__Eric J. Enger_________________
Brooke A. M. Taylor
Lead Attorney
WA Bar No. 33190 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Jordan W. Connors
WA Bar No. 41649 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, Washington 98101-3000
T: [phone]
F: [phone] (fax)
Stephen E. Morrissey
CA Bar No. 187865
[e-mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
T: [phone]
F: [phone] (fax)
Michael F. Heim
TX Bar No. 09380923 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Leslie V. Payne
JOINT STIPULATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
-3Case No. 3:11-cv-06637 RS

1

8

TX Bar No. 00784736 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Eric J. Enger
TX Bar No. 24045833 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Nick P. Patel
TX Bar No. 24076610 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
600 Travis Street, Suite 6710
Houston, Texas 77002-2912
T: [phone]
F: [phone](fax)

9

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

2
3
4
5
6
7

10
11

Dated: October 16, 2013
By: ___Howard Y. Chen (by permission EJE)____
Sean S. Pak (Bar No. 219032)
[e-mail]
Jennifer A. Kash (Bar No. 203679)
[e-mail]
Kevin A. Smith (Bar No. 250814)
[e-mail]
Howard Y. Chen (Bar No. 265015)
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

-4-

Case No. 3:11-cv-06637 RS

1
2
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 16st day of October, 2013, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served on all parties via CM/ECF and/or email to counsel.

4
_/s/ Eric Enger____________
Eric Enger

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

-5-

Case No. 3:11-cv-06637 RS

1

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4

DATED: ________________________ _____________________________________
10/21/13
[Hon. Richard Seeborg]
United States District Court Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

-6-

Case No. 3:11-cv-06637 RS