Prism Technologies v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1135

ORDER AND JUDGMENT regarding Memorandum Opinion 1134 .(1) McAfee's motion for summary judgment (Filing No. 871 ) is granted as to noninfringement; in other respects it is denied as moot. (2) Symantec's motion for summary judgment (Fili ng No. 868 ) is granted as to noninfringement; in other respects it is denied as moot. (3) Trend Micro's motion for summary judgment (Filing No. 849 ) is granted as to noninfringement; in other respects it is denied as moot. (4) All other outs tanding motions before the Court are also denied as moot. (5) Prism's request for oral argument on the motions for summary judgment is denied. (6) Prism's second amended complaint for patent infringement (Filing No. 1063 ) is dismissed as to McAfee, Symantec, and Trend Micro. (7) The Court finds for McAfee for its first counterclaim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the '288 patent (Filing No. 1098 ). The Court dismisses McAfee's second counterclaim for declara tory judgment of invalidity of the '288 patent, because no "actual controversy" as to the '288 patent now exists between Prism and McAfee. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Without appropriate motion and briefing, the Court will not cons ider whether this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 entitling McAfee to recover attorney fees. (8) The Court finds for Symantec for its first counterclaim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the '288 patent (Filing No . 1097 ). The Court dismisses Symantec's second counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the '288 patent, because no "actual controversy" as to the '288 patent now exists between Prism and Symantec. See 28 U.S. C. § 2201. Without appropriate motion and briefing, the Court will not consider whether this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 entitling Symantec to recover attorney fees. (9) The Court finds for Trend Micro for its first counter claim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the '288 patent (Filing No. 1117 ). The Court dismisses Trend Micro's second counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the '288 patent, because no "actual controve rsy" as to the '288 patent now exists between Prism and Trend Micro. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Without appropriate motion and briefing, the Court will not consider whether this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 entitling to recover attorney fees. (10) Taxable costs are assessed against the plaintiff, Prism Technologies, Inc. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PRISM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
McAFEE, INC.; SYMANTEC
)
CORPORATION; and TREND MICRO )
INCORPORATED,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:10CV220

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the memorandum opinion entered herein this
date,
1) McAfee’s motion for summary judgment (Filing No.
871) is granted as to noninfringement; in other respects it is
denied as moot.
2) Symantec’s motion for summary judgment (Filing No.
868) is granted as to noninfringement; in other respects it is
denied as moot.
3) Trend Micro’s motion for summary judgment (Filing
No. 849) is granted as to noninfringement; in other respects it
is denied as moot.
4) All other outstanding motions before the Court are
also denied as moot.
5) Prism’s request for oral argument on the motions for
summary judgment is denied.

6) Prism’s second amended complaint for patent
infringement (Filing No. 1063) is dismissed as to McAfee,
Symantec, and Trend Micro.
7) The Court finds for McAfee for its first
counterclaim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the
‘288 patent (Filing No. 1098).

The Court dismisses McAfee’s

second counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the
‘288 patent, because no “actual controversy” as to the ‘288
patent now exists between Prism and McAfee.
§ 2201.

See 28 U.S.C.

Without appropriate motion and briefing, the Court will

not consider whether this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C.
§ 285 entitling McAfee to recover attorney fees.
8) The Court finds for Symantec for its first
counterclaim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the
‘288 patent (Filing No. 1097).

The Court dismisses Symantec’s

second counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the
‘288 patent, because no “actual controversy” as to the ‘288
patent now exists between Prism and Symantec.
§ 2201.

See 28 U.S.C.

Without appropriate motion and briefing, the Court will

not consider whether this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C.
§ 285 entitling Symantec to recover attorney fees.
9) The Court finds for Trend Micro for its first
counterclaim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the
‘288 patent (Filing No. 1117).

The Court dismisses Trend Micro’s

-2-

second counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the
‘288 patent, because no “actual controversy” as to the ‘288
patent now exists between Prism and Trend Micro.
§ 2201.

See 28 U.S.C.

Without appropriate motion and briefing, the Court will

not consider whether this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C.
§ 285 entitling

to recover attorney fees.

10) Taxable costs are assessed against the plaintiff,
Prism Technologies, Inc.
DATED this 10th day of December, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-