Codexis, Inc. v. EnzymeWorks, Inc. et al
Filing
186
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/06/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2018)
8
DOUGLAS E. LUMISH (Bar No. 183863)
doug.lumish@lw.com
GABRIEL S. GROSS (Bar No. 254672)
gabe.gross@lw.com
PATRICIA YOUNG (Bar No. 291265)
patricia.young@lw.com
LINFONG TZENG (Bar No. 281798)
linfong.tzeng@lw.com
JIE WANG (Bar No. 306395)
jie.wang@lw.com
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone: +1.650.328.4600
Facsimile: +1.650.463.2600
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff CODEXIS, INC.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13
14
15
CODEXIS, INC.
16
Plaintiff,
17
v.
18
19
20
21
22
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00826-WHO
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF PATENT
INFRINGEMENT
ENZYMEWORKS, INC., a California
corporation, ENZYMEWORKS, INC., a
Chinese corporation a/k/a SUZHOU
HANMEI BIOTECHNOLOGY CO. LTD
d/b/a ENZYMEWORKS, INC. (CHINA),
JUNHUA TAO, an individual, and
ANDREW TAO, an individual
Defendants.
23
24
25
The parties having agreed to a settlement of the claims between them, and having
26
stipulated to entry of this Consent Judgment, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
27
DECREED that:
28
AT T O R N EYS AT LAW
SIL IC O N VALL EY
CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00826-WHO
1
1.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the above-captioned action
2
and personal jurisdiction over the parties, and venue is proper in this District. This Court retains
3
jurisdiction for the purpose of executing and enforcing the terms of this Consent Judgment.
4
2.
Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Codexis, Inc. (“Codexis”) against
5
Defendants EnzymeWorks, Inc. (U.S.) and Suzhou Hanmei Biotechnology Co. Ltd, d/b/a
6
EnzymeWorks, Inc. (China) (collectively, “EnzymeWorks”) (collectively, the “Corporate
7
Defendants”) on Counts I through X of the Second Amended Complaint in the above-captioned
8
action as follows:
9
a.
EnzymeWorks has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,088,610; 8,415,127;
10
7,820,421; 8,071,347; 8,227,229; 8,293,507; 8,470,564; 8,852,900; 8,932,838; and
11
9,133,445 (the “Patent-in-Suit”).
12
b.
The Patents-in-Suit are not invalid.
13
3.
This Consent Judgment is final, enforceable, and non-appealable.
14
4.
Each party will bear its own fees, costs, and expenses.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AT T O R N EYS AT LAW
SIL IC O N VALL EY
CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00826-WHO
1
Dated: February 5, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
2
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
3
By
4
Douglas E. Lumish
Gabriel S. Gross
Patricia Young
Linfong Tzeng
Jie Wang
5
6
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff CODEXIS, INC.
8
9
/s/ Gabriel S. Gross
Dated: February 5, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
10
By
11
/s/ J. James Li
J. James Li
Tony Abdollahi
Andy Pierz
12
13
Attorneys for Defendants JUNHUA TAO,
ANDREW TAO, ENZYMEWORKS, INC.,
and ENZYMEWORKS, INC. (CHINA) a/k/a
SUZHOU HANMEI BIOTECHNOLOGY CO.
LTD dba ENZYMEWORKS, INC. (CHINA)
14
15
16
17
18
19
ATTESTATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that the concurrence in the filing of
this document has been obtained from the other signatory.
20
21
Dated: February 5, 2018
22
By
23
/s/ Gabriel S. Gross
Gabriel S. Gross
24
ORDER
25
26
27
28
AT T O R N EYS AT LAW
SIL IC O N VALL EY
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2018
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Court Judge
CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00826-WHO
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?