Internet Patents Corporation v. Quinstreet, Inc.
Filing
37
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 10/25/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
INTERNET PATENTS CORPORATION,
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 12-06506 JSW
Plaintiff,
v.
QUINSTREET, INC.,
12
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Defendant.
/
13
14
In a related matter pending before this Court, Case No. 12-5036 JSW, the Court
15
dismissed the suit based on the finding that Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law because the
16
asserted patent, United States Patent No. 7,707,505 (“the ’505 Patent”) entitled “Dynamic Tabs
17
for a Graphical User Interface” is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for lack of patent-eligible
18
subject matter. On October 24, 2013, Plaintiff in that matter noticed its appeal of that decision.
19
It “is the duty of the court to dismiss a patent infringement suit whenever it appears that
20
the patent is invalid.” Barkeij v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 201 F.2d 1, 2 (9th Cir. 1954)
21
(citations omitted). Accordingly, this Court issued an order to show cause to Plaintiff as to why
22
this related matter premised upon the same patent should not be dismissed. In response, the
23
Court received essentially an improper motion for reconsideration of its opinion re invalidity.
24
The Court finds the response to the order to show cause unpersuasive. This matter is dismissed
25
as it is premised upon the assertion of a patent the Court has determined to be invalid.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
28
Dated:
October 25, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?