In re Ricoh Company Ltd. Patent Litigation

Filing 709

JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge James Ware on May 28, 2010. (jwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Attorneys for Plaintiff SYNOPSYS, INC. and for Defendants AEROFLEX INCORPORATED, E R C N F AMI SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., MATROX D IS T IC T O ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, LTD., MATROX R GRAPHICS, INC., MATROX INTERNATIONAL CORP., MATROX TECH, INC., and AEROFLEX COLORADO SPRINGS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE RICOH COMPANY LTD. PATENT ) CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW LITIGATION ) JUDGMENT ) [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW

A

LI

FO

RON E. SHULMAN, State Bar No. 178263 [e-mail] TERRY KEARNEY, State Bar No. 160054 [e-mail] RICHARD G. FRENKEL, State Bar No. 204133 [e-mail] WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

mes Wa Judge Ja

re

R NIA

O OR IT IS S

DERED

RT U O

NO

RT

H

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This action involves consolidated cases related to Ricoh's U.S. Patent No. 4,922,432 ("the `432 Patent"). In January 2003, Ricoh filed a patent infringement action in the District of Delaware against defendants Aeroflex, Inc., AMI Semiconductor, Inc., Matrox Electronics Systems, Ltd., Matrox Graphics, Inc., Matrox International Corp., Matrox Tech., Inc. and Aeroflex Colorado Springs, Inc. (hereinafter collectively, "the Customer Defendants") for infringement of the `432 Patent. In May 2003, Synopsys filed a declaratory judgment action against Ricoh in the Northern District of California on behalf of its customers, seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the `432 Patent (No. C 03-02289). Subsequently, the Delaware action was transferred to the Northern District of California (No. C 03-04669). This Court consolidated the two actions into 5:03-cv-02289-JW. Pursuant to the Court's April 15, 2010 Order Granting Synopsys' Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement ("April 15 Order," Docket Item No. 698), and pursuant to the Court's May 12, 2010 Order Denying Defendant Ricoh Company Ltd.'s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration (Docket Item No. 707), there has now been an adjudication of all of the infringement claims asserted by Ricoh against the Customer Defendants in this consolidated action, and of Synopsys' declaratory judgment claim and the Customer Defendant's counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. First, for the reasons set forth in the April 15 Order, judgment is entered in favor of Synopsys and the Customer Defendants and against Ricoh. The Court declares that the asserted claims of the `432 Patent are not infringed by Synopsys or the Customer Defendants. Second, Synopsys' remaining declaratory judgment claims of invalidity and unenforceability of the `432 Patent, and the Customer Defendants' remaining counterclaims of invalidity and unenforceability of the `432 Patent, are dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), pursuant to the agreement of the parties that these other claims and counterclaims should be dismissed without prejudice.1

On November 2, 2006, the Court granted Ricoh's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants Aeroflex and Aeroflex Colorado, Inc.'s Affirmative Defense of Authorization and Consent (D.I. 535), and ordered the Clerk to enter partial judgment on that affirmative defense.
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW

1

-1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court declares that Synopsys and the Customer Defendants are the prevailing parties, and may request recover costs pursuant to Local Rules 54-1 through 54-4. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay of entry of final judgment in favor of Synopsys and the Customer Defendants and against Ricoh. Given the dismissal without prejudice of the declaratory judgment claims and counterclaims as set forth above, this is accordingly a full and final adjudication of all issues before this Court in these consolidated actions. The Clerk shall close this file. and the member case, 03-4669 JW Dated: Dated: May 28, 2010 _____________________________________ The Honorable James Ware ____________________________ United States District Judge JAMES WARE United States District Judge

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW

-2-