Ivera Medical Corporation v. Hospira, Inc.

Filing 43

ORDER Granting Parties Joint Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and on Deadline to Seek Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 6/11/2014.(knb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVERA MEDICAL CORPORATION, Case Nos.: 11-cv-1246-H-RBB 12-cv-1582-H-RBB Plaintiff-Counterdefendant, 12 vs. 13 ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND ON DEADLINE TO SEEK FEES AND COSTS 14 15 HOSPIRA, INC., 16 Defendant-Counterplaintiff. [Doc. No. 174] 17 18 19 In this consolidated patent infringement action, Plaintiff asserts three claims 20 against Defendant for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,780,794 (“the ‘794 patent”), 21 7,985,302 (“the ‘302 patent”), and 8,206,514 (“the ‘514 patent”) (collectively, the 1 2 22 “patents-in-suit”). (See [1246] Doc. No. 53, First Amended Complaint; ; [1582] Doc. 23 No. 8, First Amended Complaint.) Defendant asserted counterclaims that it did not 24 infringe the patents-in-suit, that the patents-in-suit are invalid, and that the 25 26 27 1 “[1246]” refers to Ivera Medical Corporation v. Excelsior Medical Corporation, No. 11-cv-1246-H. 2 “[1582]” refers to Ivera Medical Corporation v. Excelsior Medical Corporation, No. 28 11-cv-1582-H. -1- 11cv1246; 12cv1582 1 patents-in-suit are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. (See [1246] Doc. No. 55; 2 [1582] Doc. No. 14.) On April 29, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment for 3 Defendant and invalidated the patents-in-suit for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 4 ([1246] Doc. No. 162.) On June 5, 2014, the Court ordered the parties to show cause 5 why it should not deny all pending claims as moot. (See Ivera v. Excelsior, No. 6 11-cv-1115-H, Doc. No. 128.) On June 9, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion for 7 entry of final judgment and request to preserve their rights to seek attorneys’ fees after 8 appellate review of the Court’s order. ([1246] Doc. No. 174.) 9 The Court, for good cause shown, grants the joint motion and enters judgment 10 for Defendant Hospira. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The Court invalidated the asserted 11 patents, and “one cannot infringe an invalid patent.” See Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco 12 Sys., 720 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Court also dismisses Defendant’s 13 unenforceability counterclaim as moot. The Court further orders as follows: 14 1. The Court permits the parties to seek attorneys’ fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 after appellate review; and 15 16 2. The Court enters final judgment for Defendant Hospira. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: June 11, 2014 ________________________________ MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 11cv1246; 12cv1582

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?