Barbaro Technologies, LLC v. Niantic, Inc.

Filing 131

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 130 For Entry of Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/14/2020. (clS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2020)

1

Jordan A. Sigale (Ill. ARDC 6210047) Admitted
pro hac vice

2

[e-mail]
Julie Langdon (Ill. ARDC 6291722) Admitted
pro hac vice
[e-mail]
DUNLAP CODDING PC
225 West Washington St., Ste. 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: [phone]

3
4
5
6

-and7
8
9
10
11

Douglas J. Sorocco (OK. Bar 17347, Ill.
ARDC 2381747); Admitted pro hac vice
[e-mail]
Evan Talley (OK Bar 22923) Adm.Pro hac
Vice; [e-mail]
DUNLAP CODDING PC
609 West Sheridan Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Tel: [phone]

DARIN W. SNYDER (SB #136003)
[e-mail]
LUANN L. SIMMONS (SB #203526)
[e-mail]
ALEXANDER B. PARKER (SB #264705)
[e-mail]
BILL TRAC (SB #281437))
[e-mail]
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-984-8701
Attorneys for Defendant
Niantic, Inc.

12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Barbaro Technologies, LLC

14
15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18
BARBARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,,
19
Plaintiff,
20

JOINT MOTION AND ORDER FOR
ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

v.
21
22
23

Case No. 3:18-cv-02955-RS

NIANTIC, INC.,
Defendant.

24
25
26
27
28
JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02955-RS

1

On January 30, 2018, Barbaro Technologies, LLC (“Barbaro”) filed its Complaint against

2

Niantic, Inc. (“Niantic”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,373,377 (“’377 Patent”) and

3

8,228,325 (“’325 Patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”) in the United States District Court

4

for the Central District of California. Dkt. No. 1.

5

On April 5, 2018, after the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the

6

Northern District of California, Niantic filed its Answer and defenses to Barbaro’s Complaint.

7

Niantic did not assert any counterclaims. Dkt. No. 24.

8

On September 6, 2018, Barbaro served its Amended Asserted Claims and Preliminary

9

Infringement Contentions identifying the asserted claims as claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 15-17, 19, 24-

10

25 of the ’377 Patent and claims 1, 3, and 5-6 of the ’325 Patent. Barbaro later withdrew claim 5

11

of the ’325 Patent as an asserted claim. See Dkt. No. 120, Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to

12

Defendant’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on Pleadings of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. 101, at

13

2, n.2; Dkt. No. 123, Order Granting Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at 1, n.1. The

14

“Asserted Claims” in this case, therefore, are: claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 15-17, 19, 24-25 of the ’377

15

Patent and claims 1, 3, and 6 of the ’325 Patent.

16

On February 12, 2020 the Court issued its Order Construing Claims, providing its

17

construction of the terms recited in the Asserted Claims. Dkt. No. 116. In particular, the Court

18

determined that the claim term “digital logic library,” recited in all independent claims of the ’377

19

Patent, is indefinite. Id. at 8. Because this claim term is found in each independent claim of the

20

’377 Patent, it is also incorporated in all the asserted claims of the ’377 Patent.

21
22

On April 23, 2020 Niantic filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Invalidity
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the ’325 Patent. Dkt. No. 119.

23

On May 21, 2020, the Court granted Niantic’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,

24

finding all asserted claims of the ’325 Patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Order Granting

25

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings”). Dkt. No. 123.

26

On June 2, 2020, Barbaro filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration

27

of the Court’s Order Granting Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and the Court issued an

28

Order requesting responsive briefing on June 4, 2020. Dkt. No. 125.
-2-

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL
JUDGEMENT CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02955-RS

1
2

On August 11, 2020, the Court denied Barbaro’s Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. No.
129.

3

Because the Court’s orders have now disposed of all Asserted Claims, Barbaro and

4

Niantic jointly request that the Court enter a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 58(d) in favor of Niantic and against Barbaro as follows:

6
7
8
9

1. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 15-17, 19, and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,377 are
invalid.
2. All of Barbaro’s allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,377 are
dismissed with prejudice.

10

3. Claims 1, 3, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,228,325 are invalid.

11

4. All of Barbaro’s allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,228,325 are

12

dismissed with prejudice.

13

A proposed form of judgment accompanies this Motion.

14

Barbaro reserves all appellate rights arising from this Action including, but not limited to,

15

the right to appeal the Order Construing Claims (and the right to challenge the construction of any

16

disputed claim terms on appeal), the Order Granting Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and

17

the Order Denying Barbaro’s Motion for Reconsideration. Barbaro reserves all rights to oppose

18

by submission any Motion by Niantic to seek fees and costs.

19

Niantic reserves all appellate rights arising from this Action including, but not limited to,

20

the right to seek affirmance of final judgment on the grounds in the Court’s Orders or on alternate

21

grounds. Niantic reserves all rights to seek fees and costs.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL
JUDGEMENT CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02955-RS

1

DATED: October 6, 2020

DUNLAP CODDING, PC

2
3

By:
/s/ Jordan A. Sigale
Jordan A. Sigale, Illinois ARDC No. 6210047
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BARBARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.

4
5
6
DATED: October 6, 2020

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

7
8
9
10

By:
/s/ Luann L. Simmons
Luann L. Simmons
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
NIANTIC, INC.

11
12
13
14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that all counsel of record is being served on October 6, 2020, with a copy of this
document via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
/s/ Jordan A. Sigale
JORDAN A. SIGALE

15
16
17
18

FILER’S ATTESTATION
Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that the other signatory listed, on whose

19

behalf the filing is submitted, concurs in the filing’s content and has authorized the filing.

20

/s/ Jordan A. Sigale
JORDAN A. SIGALE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL
JUDGEMENT CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02955-RS

1

FINAL JUDGMENT

2

Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Entry of Final Judgement filed by Barbaro

3

Technologies, LLC (“Barbaro”) and Niantic, Inc. (“Niantic”) in the captioned case. For the

4

reasons stated in the Joint Motion, the Court’s Order Construing Claims (Dkt. No. 116), the

5

Court’s Order Granting Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 123), the Court’s Order

6

Denying Barbaro’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 129), and good cause appearing,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT judgment be and is

8

hereby entered in favor of Defendant Niantic, Inc. and against Plaintiff Barbaro Technologies,

9

LLC (“Barbaro”) as follows:

10
11
12
13

1. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 15-17, 19, and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,377 are
invalid.
2. All of Barbaro’s allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,377 are
dismissed with prejudice.

14

3. Claims 1, 3, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,228,325 are invalid.

15

4. All of Barbaro’s allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,228,325 are

16
17
18

dismissed with prejudice.
Furthermore, Niantic may seek fees and costs, and Barbaro may oppose by submission
any Motion by Niantic to seek fees and costs.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED

21
22
23
24

DATED: October 14, 2020
The Honorable Richard Seeborg
United States District Court

25
26
27
28
-5-

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL
JUDGEMENT CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02955-RS