Fortinet, Inc. v. Fortanix, Inc.

Filing 177

ORDER RE: REMAINING CLAIMS; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 20, 2022. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2022)

Case 3:20-cv-06900-MMC Document 177 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 1

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

FORTINET, INC.,
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER RE: REMAINING CLAIMS;
DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

v.

8
9

Case No. 20-cv-06900-MMC

FORTANIX, INC.,
Defendant.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On October 17, 2022, a jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant on plaintiff's

13

First Claim for Relief (Trademark Infringement) and Fourth Claim for Relief (California

14

Common Law Unfair Competition).1

15

The remaining claims, which are equitable in nature, namely, plaintiff's Third Claim

16

for Relief (Statutory Unfair Competition) and Fifth Claim for Relief (Cancellation of U.S.

17

Trademark Registration No. 5,289,135), are, like the First and Fourth Claims for Relief,

18

dependent on a finding of infringement, and, in light thereof, defendant is entitled to

19

judgment in its favor on those claims.

20
21
22
23

Lastly, the Clerk of Court is directed to file an Amended Judgment reflecting the
above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 20, 2022
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

1

In that the validity of plaintiff's trademark was not disputed, the Court declined to
submit to the jury plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief (False Designation of Origin) (see
Transcript of Proceedings, October 12, 2022, 614:7-23, 616:7-9), thereby granting
defendant's motion for judgment on said claim