Enplas Display Device Corporation et al v. Seoul Semiconductor Company, Ltd.

Filing 385

ORDER ON INVALIDITY CLAIMS 39-39, 41-43, 45-48 of '554 PATENT. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 2/29/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/29/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

ENPLAS DISPLAY DEVICE
CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC
ORDER ON INVALIDITY CLAIMS
38-39, 41-43, 45-48 OF ’554 PATENT

12
13
14

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR
COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendant.

15
16

The parties dispute whether EDD can seek a jury finding of invalidity on claims 38-

17

39, 41-43, and 45-48 of the ‘554 patent, when the Court has already entered a summary

18

judgment order of noninfringement as to these claims. Dkt. No. 224. “A district court

19

judge faced with an invalidity counterclaim challenging a patent that it concludes was not

20

infringed may either hear the claim or dismiss it without prejudice, subject to review only

21

for abuse of discretion.” Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 355 F.3d 1361,

22

1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the parties have prepared for trial on these invalidity

23

counterclaims, and the Court expects that EDD will remain within the time limits set to

24

present its case. Thus, the Court permits the invalidity claims 38-39, 41-43, and 45-48 of

25

the ‘554 patent to proceed at trial.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 29, 2016

28
Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge