Fuzzysharp Technologies Incorporated v. Nvidia Corporation

Filing 51

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 50 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER (Stipulated Dismissal) filed by Nvidia Corporation. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 2, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985)
[e-mail]
DIANA M. RUTOWSKI (STATE BAR NO. 233878)
[e-mail]
JESSE CHENG (STATE BAR NO. 259909)
[e-mail]
JAMES FREEDMAN (STATE BAR NO. 287177)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
NVIDIA CORPORATION

DAVID FINK (pro hac vice)
7519 Apache Plume
Houston, TX 77071
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
[e-mail]
DUNCAN M. MCNEILL
1514 Van Dyke Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94124
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Fed. Bar No. 136416
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14
15

FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES, INC,

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-6375-JST
STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

v.
NVIDIA CORPORATION,
Defendant.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
12-CV-6375-JST

1

Plaintiff Fuzzysharp Technologies, Inc. (“Fuzzysharp”) and Defendant NVIDIA

2

Corporation (“NVIDIA”), by and through their designated counsel, hereby submit this Stipulated

3

Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

4
5

WHEREAS Fuzzysharp filed suit against NVIDIA on December 17, 2012 (Dkt. No. 1);

6

WHEREAS on April 18, 2013, the Court granted NVIDIA’s motion to dismiss

7

Fuzzysharp’s initial complaint with leave to amend by May 15, 2013 (Dkt. No. 28), after which

8

Fuzzysharp filed an amended complaint on May 14, 2013 (Dkt. No. 29);

9

WHEREAS on September 4, 2013, the Court granted in part NVIDIA’s motion to dismiss

10

the amended complaint, dismissing with prejudice Fuzzysharp’s claim under U.S. Patent No.

11

6,618,047 (“the ’047 patent”) and leaving only the claim of willful, direct infringement of U.S.

12

Patent No. 6,172,679 (”the ’679 patent”) (Dkt. No. 42);

13
14
15

WHEREAS NVIDIA has alleged counterclaims for declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of the ’679 patent (Dkt. No. 43);
WHEREAS Fuzzysharp previously sued Intel Corporation for infringement of the

16

’679 and ’047 patents in Fuzzysharp Techs. Inc. v. Intel Corp, Case No. 12-CV-04413-YGR

17

(N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 22, 2012) (“Intel”);

18

WHEREAS on November 7, 2013, the Court in Intel issued an Order finding all claims

19

asserted in that case to be invalid and not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Intel Dkt. No. 74

20

(Order Construing Claim Terms in Dispute and Granting Summary Judgment in Favor of

21

Defendant Intel Corporation)); and

22

WHEREAS counsel for Fuzzysharp has indicated its intent to appeal the decision in Intel:

23
24

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE that Fuzzysharp’s remaining claim in this case be

25

DISMISSED and that this case be closed. The parties agree that the dismissal of this claim under

26

the ’679 patent is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Fuzzysharp’s ability to file a new complaint

27

re-alleging that claim if the finding of invalidity of the ’679 Patent is reversed upon conclusion of

28

all appeals in Intel, and if Fuzzysharp files a new complaint, damages shall be as though the
-2-

STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
12-CV-6375-JST

1

present complaint had not been dismissed. Any such complaint must be filed in this Court within

2

180 days of the termination of all proceedings including any appeals in Intel.

3
4

THE PARTIES FURTHER STIPULATE that NVIDIA’s counterclaims be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

5
6

Dated: December 2, 2013

7

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP

8

By:

9
10

/s/ I. Neel Chatterjee
I. Neel Chatterjee

Attorneys for Defendant
NVIDIA CORP.

Dated: December 2, 2013

By:

/s/ David Fink
David Fink

Attorney for Plaintiff
FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES INC.

11
12
13

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), counsel for NVIDIA has obtained the concurrence
of Fuzzysharp’s counsel in the filing of this Stipulated Dismissal.

14
15

Dated: December 2, 2013

16

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
By:

17

/s/ I. Neel Chatterjee
I. Neel Chatterjee

Attorneys for Defendant
NVIDIA CORP.

18
19
20
21

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

22
23

December 2, 2013
Dated: ___________________
Jon S. Tigar
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-3-

STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
12-CV-6375-JST