e-Tool Development, Inc. et al v Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.

Filing 56

ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 44 . Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 25 is Granted. Plaintiff's claims of patent infringement are Dismissed with prejudice, and Defendant's counterclaim for declaratory judgment that its EE-Sim Tool does not infringe upon the Patent is Dismissed as Moot. Signed on 5/14/18 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

E-TOOL DEVELOPMENT, INC., and
E-TOOL PATENT HOLDINGS, CORP.,
Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants
No. 3:17-CV-00720-PK
v.
ORDER
MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC,
Defendant/Counter Claimant

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [44] on January 11,
2018, in which he recommends that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings [25]. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation.
Pls.’ Obj., ECF 50. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings &
Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the
1 - ORDER

Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
I have carefully considered Plaintiffs’ objections and conclude there is no basis to modify
the Findings & Recommendation. The Court clarifies, however, that this decision only
invalidates the specific claims of the Patent at issue in this case. See Therasense, Inc. v. Becton,
Dickinson and Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that validity defenses are
“claim specific”); Tannerite Sports, LLC v. Jerent Enterprises, LLC, 6:15-CV-180-AA, 2015
WL 5829816, at *4 (D. Or. Oct. 6, 2015) (same). I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of
the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &
Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation [44]
granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [25]. Plaintiff’s claims of patent
infringement are dismissed with prejudice, and Defendant’s counterclaim for declaratory
judgment that its EE-Sim Tool does not infringe upon the Patent is dismissed as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ________________ day of ____________, 2018.

____________________________________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

2 - ORDER