CARCHECKUP LLC v. CARMD.COM CORPORATION et al

Filing 46

CLOSED JUDGMENT of non-infrigement of US Patent 6807469 and 6925368 pursuant to FRCP 54(B) and Order on the Parties joint stipulation. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/9/2014.(CBU)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CARCHECKUP LLC,
Plaintiff,

1:13-cv-1035-SEB-TAB

v.
CARMD.COM CORPORATION and
INNOVA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
Defendants.
ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION AND AGREED MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,807,469
AND 6,925,368 PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 54(B)
1.

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff asserted claims 1, 7, 17, 18, 19 and 21

of both U.S. Patent No. 6,807,469 (“the ‘469 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,925,368 (“the ‘368
patent”) against Defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint included allegations that Defendants’ CarMD
Handheld Device and Software Kit, CarMD Vehicle Health System, Innova 3030e CanOBD2
Car Reader, and Innova 3030f CanOBD2 Diagnostic Tool infringed the ‘469 and ‘368 patents.
2.

Defendants deny infringement and have also asserted declaratory judgment

counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement, as well as various affirmative defenses.
3.

Following briefing, this Court conducted a Markman hearing on July 8, 2014,

during which time the Court considered the parties’ claim construction briefing and heard oral
argument.
4.

On July 16, 2014, the Court issued its Order on Claim Construction construing the

disputed terms and phrases of the ‘469 and ‘368 patents. (Dkt. No. 40). One of the disputed
constructions was the construction of the phrase “lacks sufficient data processing capability to
fully process the unprocessed diagnostic data into human-useable diagnostic information” (“the

Disputed Phrase”), which the Court construed to mean “lacks sufficient data processing
capability to fully process (as previously defined) the unprocessed diagnostic data into a visual
display of diagnostic data, or information derived therefrom.” The Court further construed the
terms “unprocessed diagnostic data” and “unprocessed data” to mean “data about problems or
malfunctions in a vehicle, such as diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) or error codes, remaining in
the original form and format in which they were retrieved from the vehicle” and construed the
phrase “processing the unprocessed diagnostic data into natural language diagnostic information”
to mean “manipulating the unprocessed diagnostic data (as previously defined) into a nontechnical, non-alphanumeric verbal report in a format that may be understood by both a typical
consumer and a service technician.”
5.

The parties have informed the Court that, based on the Court’s construction of the

Disputed Phrase, neither Defendant infringes nor has infringed any of claims 1, 7, 17, 18, 19 and
21 of the ‘469 or ‘368 patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, because none
of Defendants’ accused products lacks sufficient data processing capability to fully process the
unprocessed diagnostic data into a visual display of diagnostic data, or information derived
therefrom.
6.

Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

54(b) of non-infringement as to claims 1, 7, 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the ‘469 and ‘368 patent, as
construed by this Court, as to all Defendants.
7.

All defenses and counterclaims of the Defendants are hereby dismissed

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, however, this dismissal of Defendants’ counterclaims does not
constitute a voluntary dismissal of the Defendants’ counterclaims for purposes of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).

-2-

8.

This Final Judgment is without prejudice to the parties’ rights to assert any

defenses in any future dispute, including without limitation res judicata, collateral estoppel, issue
preclusion, and claim preclusion for any products (including the use thereof) that were, or could
have been, accused of infringing any claim of the ‘469 or ‘368 patents.
9.

This Final Judgment is without prejudice to the parties’ rights to appeal any prior

or future orders issued by this court that do not form the basis for the stipulated finding of noninfringement, as described above.
10.

This Final Judgment is without prejudice to Defendants’ rights in their

counterclaims and defenses and Plaintiff’s defenses to Defendants’ counterclaims.
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, final judgment shall be entered as follows:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), this Court determines and orders that
there is no just reason for delay and directs the Clerk of this Court to enter final judgment of noninfringement as to claims 1, 7, 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the ‘469 and ‘368 patent, either literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents and that, while it is understood that the Defendants have
additional non-infringement arguments, invalidity arguments, equitable arguments, and other
defenses and counterclaims, there is no need to reach these issues in view of the noninfringement judgment and all counterclaims by Defendants are hereby dismissed without
prejudice, as set forth in this Order.

-3-

This Court shall retain and hereby does retain jurisdiction over this matter in its entirety,
including any claims which may be reinstated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

SIGNED this _____ day of September, 2014.
9th

SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
_____________________________________
Hon. Sarah Evans Barker
United States District Judge

Distribution will be made electronically on all
ECF-registered counsel of record via the court's
ECF system.

-4-