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)
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?