EON Corp IP Holdings LLC v. Sensus USA Inc et al

Filing 1039

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT MOTOROLA SYSTEMS, INC. re 1036 Statement, filed by EON Corp IP Holdings LLC, 1032 Statement filed by Motorola Solutions, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 25, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EON CORP IP HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 12-cv-01011-JST Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 CISCO SYSTEMS INC, et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT MOTOROLA SYSTEMS, INC. Re: ECF Nos. 1032 & 1036. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 On April 1, 2014, after conducting oral argument and an earlier claim construction hearing, 12 13 the Court granted a motion by Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P., HTC 14 America, Inc., United States Cellular Corporation, and Motorola Mobility LLC (the “moving 15 defendants”) for summary judgment of non-infringement. The five moving defendants 16 subsequently submitted a proposed form entering judgment in favor of the five moving defendants 17 as well as a sixth defendant, Motorola Systems, Inc. (“MSI”), who did not join the motion for 18 summary judgment. MSI argued that, since its alleged liability is predicated exclusively on acts of 19 direct infringement that the Court found as a matter of law not to infringe the Patent-in-Suit, the 20 Court’s order entitles MSI to summary judgment for the same reasons as it entitles the five 21 moving defendants to judgment. ECF No. 1032. “After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may . . . grant summary 22 23 judgment for a nonmovant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). A district court may sua sponte grant summary 24 after ensuing that the party against whom judgment is sought has “had a full and fair opportunity 25 to ventilate the issues involved.” Albino v. Baca, __ F.3d __, No. 10-55702, 2014 WL 1317141, at 26 *12-13 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2014) (quoting Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Connett, 685 F.2d 309, 312 (9th Cir. 27 1982)). 28 The Court granted Plaintiff EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC (“EON”) leave to file any 1 response to MSI’s argument within eight days. ECF No. 1033. EON’s response, ECF No. 1036, 2 did not dispute that the Court’s summary judgment order entitles MSI to judgment for the same 3 reasons as it entitles the other five Defendants to judgment. 4 Instead, EON argues that it had negotiated a settlement in principle with MSI. If MSI has 5 violated an enforceable agreement with EON, that is a matter for another motion or, depending on 6 the circumstances, another case. 7 EON also invokes Rule 54(b)’s prohibition against entering judgment against fewer than 8 all of the defendants in the action without making specific findings. But that rule only applies 9 when the Court will, in fact, only be entering judgment against fewer than all the parties in an action. For the reasons argued by MSI in ECF No. 1032, which EON has failed to rebut, and on 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 the basis of the Court’s earlier orders, the Court will grant summary judgment to MSI pursuant to 12 Rule 54(f). 13 The Court will enter all six defendants’ proposed form of judgment. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 Dated: April 24, 2014 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?