Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. A.Hak Industrial Services US, LLC

Filing 233

FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 54(b) by Judge Richard A Jones. (RS)

Download PDF
1 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 QUEST INTEGRITY USA, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-01971-RAJ Plaintiff, 11 12 13 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 54(b) v. A.HAK INDUSTRIAL SERVICES US, LLC, 14 Noted for Hearing: August 15, 2017 Defendant. 15 16 In light of the Court’s July 31, 2017 Order granting A.Hak Industrial 17 Services US, LLC’s (“A.Hak’s”) Motion for Summary Judgment Based on 18 Collateral Estoppel (Dkt. # 230) and the parties’ Joint Status Reports submitted on August 19 7 and August 15, 2017, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DIRECTED that: 20 1. A.Hak’s counterclaims and any other claims for affirmative relief, including 21 but not limited to any requests for attorneys’ fees and costs and related findings thereto 22 (such as a request for a finding that the case is “exceptional” under applicable patent law), 23 along with Quest’s pending motion to dismiss certain counterclaims (Dkt. # 194), are 24 hereby BIFURCATED AND STAYED pending any appeal by Quest Integrity USA, LLC 25 (“Quest”) of Dkt. # 230, the Court’s July 31 Order granting Defendant’s Motion for 26 Summary Judgment. [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 54(b) – Page 1 No. 2:14-CV-01971-RAJ 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1400 SEATTLE W ASHINGTON 98101 T 206.516.3800 F 206.516.3888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2. Judgment based on collateral estoppel in favor of A.Hak is entered on Quest’s claims for infringement as to all claims asserted from the ‘874 Patent against A.Hak and on A.Hak’s counterclaim for declaratory judgment for non-infringement of such claims for the reasons set forth in the Court’s July 31, 2017 Order on summary judgment, which granted A.Hak’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Collateral Estoppel (Dkt. # 226). 3. That the above-recited judgment based on collateral estoppel is made final and appealable pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), as the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay of an immediately appealable final judgment on its summary judgment determination and that an immediate appeal will promote efficient judicial administration and will not result in any unfair prejudice to the parties. 12 13 DATED this 22nd day of August, 2017. 14 15 17 A 18 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 54(b) – Page 2 No. 2:14-CV-01971-RAJ 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1400 SEATTLE W ASHINGTON 98101 T 206.516.3800 F 206.516.3888

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?