San Francisco Technology, Inc. v. Mosswood Enterprises, Inc

Filing 43

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/17/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

OAKLAND DIVISION

8

SAN FRANCISCO TECHONOLOGY INC.,

Case No: C 10-5574 SBA

9

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

10

vs.
11

MOSSWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC.,
12

Defendant.
13
14
15

Plaintiff San Francisco Technology Inc. (“SFT”) brings the instant action as a qui

16

tam relator against Defendant Mosswood Enterprises, Inc. (“Mosswood”), for false

17

marking under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 292. Dkt. 32. On August 12, 2011, Mosswood

18

filed a motion to dismiss. In its response to the motion, SFT acknowledges that in light of

19

the recent enactment of Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, § 16(b)(4),

20

125 Stat. 329 (2011), it no longer has standing. Dkt. 36. As such, SFT states that it does

21

not oppose dismissal of the action without prejudice. Id.

22

The Court construes SFT’s response as a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23

41(a)(2), which provides that: “[A]n action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by

24

court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” The only issue remaining is whether

25

the Court should dismiss the action with or without prejudice. Where a dismissal is for lack

26

of standing, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. See Fleck & Assocs., Inc. v. City of

27

Phoenix, 471 F.3d 1100, 1102 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly,

28

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the instant action is DISMISSED without

2

prejudice. The motion hearing scheduled for January 24, 2012 is VACATED. The Clerk

3

shall close the file and terminate Docket 32.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 17, 2012

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-