Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 634

JUDGMENT - In accordance with the jurys verdict, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Googles AdWords system and Yahoos Sponsored Search system do not infringe claims 30, 31, or 33 of the 947 patent and that the 947 patent is invalid. Therefore, Bright Response takes nothing by way of its patent infringement claims, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham on 8/27/2010. (ch, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC vs. GOOGLE INC., ET AL. § § § § § JUDGMENT The court renders judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), as there is no just reason for delaying judgment on the claims tried before the jury. The plaintiff Bright Response, LLC ("Bright Response") and the defendants Google, Inc. ("Google") and Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo") tried this patent infringement case to a jury. On August 9, 2010, the jury returned a verdict and found that (1) neither Google's AdWords system nor Yahoo's Sponsored Search system infringes claims 30, 31, or 33 of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 ("the `947 patent"); (2) claims 30, 31, and 33 are invalid because the invention was in public use or on sale prior to the critical date, are obvious, and lack a sufficient written description; and (3) the `947 patent is invalid because of improper inventorship. (Dkt. No. 627). In accordance with the jury's verdict, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Google's AdWords system and Yahoo's Sponsored Search system do not infringe claims 30, 31, or 33 of the `947 patent and that the `947 patent is invalid. Therefore, Bright Response takes nothing by way of its patent infringement claims, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SIGNED this 27th day of August, 2010.

CASE NO. 2:07-CV-371-CE

___________________________________ CHARLES EVERINGHAM IV UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE