Message: 13/681,054 update
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Research In Motion Limited dba
BlackBerry; Research In Motion
Corporation dba BlackBerry,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:13-cv-00781-DMS-WVG
STIPULATED PARTIAL
JUDGMENT
Research In Motion Limited dba
BlackBerry; Research In Motion
Corporation dba BlackBerry,
Counterclaimants,
v.
e.Digital Corporation,
Counter-Defendant.
Assigned to:
Judge: Hon. Judge Dana M.
Sabraw
Ctrm: 13A (Annex)
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Research In Motion Limited dba
BlackBerry; Research In Motion
Corporation dba BlackBerry,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:13-cv-00781-DMS-WVG
STIPULATED PARTIAL
JUDGMENT
Research In Motion Limited dba
BlackBerry; Research In Motion
Corporation dba BlackBerry,
Counterclaimants,
v.
e.Digital Corporation,
Counter-Defendant.
Assigned to:
Judge: Hon. Judge Dana M.
Sabraw
Ctrm: 13A (Annex)
STIPULATED PARTIAL JUDGMENT
OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”); Defendants Research In Motion
Limited dba BlackBerry; Research In Motion Corporation dba BlackBerry
(collectively referred to as “BlackBerry”) by their undersigned counsel, hereby
stipulate and agree, subject to the approval of the Court, to the entry of the
following Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-Infringement:
1. In this action, e.Digital has alleged that certain BlackBerry product
lines (the “Accused Products”) infringe independent claim 33 and dependent
claims 2, 10, 15 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,491,774 (“the ’774 patent”) patent and
independent claim 2 and dependent claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108 (“the
’108 patent”), as set forth in e.Digital’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions
(“PICs”) served on June 26, 2013.
2. On August 22, 2013, the Honorable Judge Dana M. Sabraw issued an
Order granting BlackBerry’s motion to apply collateral estoppel with respect to the
construction of the term “flash memory module which operates as sole memory of
the received processed sound electrical signals” in the asserted claims of the ’774
and ‘108 patents that was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado in e.Digital Corp. v. Pentax of America, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-
2578-MSK-MJW (D. Col.) (“Collateral Estoppel Order”). (Dkt #62).
3. The Court found in the Collateral Estoppel Order that the elements of
issue preclusion were met in this matter and, therefore, e.Digital is precluded from
relitigating the construction of the term “flash memory module which operates as
sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals” as contained in the
asserted claims of the ’774 and ’108 patents (Dkt#62), as that limitation was
previously construed by the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado in e.Digital Corp. v. Pentax of America, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-
2578, to mean “that the device use only flash memory, not RAM or any other
OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”); Defendants Research In Motion
Limited dba BlackBerry; Research In Motion Corporation dba BlackBerry
(collectively referred to as “BlackBerry”) by their undersigned counsel, hereby
stipulate and agree, subject to the approval of the Court, to the entry of the
following Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-Infringement:
1. In this action, e.Digital has alleged that certain BlackBerry product
lines (the “Accused Products”) infringe independent claim 33 and dependent
claims 2, 10, 15 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,491,774 (“the ’774 patent”) patent and
independent claim 2 and dependent claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108 (“the
’108 patent”), as set forth in e.Digital’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions
(“PICs”) served on June 26, 2013.
2. On August 22, 2013, the Honorable Judge Dana M. Sabraw issued an
Order granting BlackBerry’s motion to apply collateral estoppel with respect to the
construction of the term “flash memory module which operates as sole memory of
the received processed sound electrical signals” in the asserted claims of the ’774
and ‘108 patents that was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado in e.Digital Corp. v. Pentax of America, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-
2578-MSK-MJW (D. Col.) (“Collateral Estoppel Order”). (Dkt #62).
3. The Court found in the Collateral Estoppel Order that the elements of
issue preclusion were met in this matter and, therefore, e.Digital is precluded from
relitigating the construction of the term “flash memory module which operates as
sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals” as contained in the
asserted claims of the ’774 and ’108 patents (Dkt#62), as that limitation was
previously construed by the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado in e.Digital Corp. v. Pentax of America, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-
2578, to mean “that the device use only flash memory, not RAM or any other
memory system, while engaging the CODEC, DSP (as applicable), and memory
control functions, as well as storing the fully-manipulated data.” The Court further
found that fairness and public policy favor application of issue preclusion in this
matter. (Dkt#62).
4. In view of the foregoing, the Parties therefore request that the Court
enter this Stipulated Partial Judgment finding that BlackBerry has not infringed
and does not infringe directly and/or indirectly, independent claims 33 and 34 and
dependent claims 2, 10, 15 and 23 of the ‘774 patent, independent claims 2 and 5
and dependent claim 3 of the ‘108 patent, and any other claims depending
therefrom.
5. It is provided, however, that if the Court’s findings as set forth in
Collateral Estoppel Order are reversed, changed, or modified on appeal such that
the matter is remanded for further consideration in any respect, the Parties reserve
all of their claims, arguments and defenses.
6. BlackBerry hereby dismisses without prejudice its counterclaims of
patent invalidity and non-infringement, as well as all other counterclaims and
defenses, with respect to the ’774 patent and the ’108 patent, and further reserves
the right to re-assert all such counterclaims and defenses should e.Digital or any
successor in interest accuse BlackBerry of infringement of the ’774 and/or the ’108
patent at any later point in time.
7. Accordingly, the Court enters this Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-
Infringement in favor of BlackBerry on e.Digital’s claim for infringement of
independent claims 33 and 34 and dependent claims 2, 10, 15 and 23 of the ’774
patent, independent claims 2 and 5 and dependent claim 3 of the ’108 patent, and
any other claims depending therefrom.
8. BlackBerry reserves its rights to seek costs and attorneys’ fees related
to e.Digital’s claims for infringement of the ‘774 and the ‘108 patents asserted in
this action.
control functions, as well as storing the fully-manipulated data.” The Court further
found that fairness and public policy favor application of issue preclusion in this
matter. (Dkt#62).
4. In view of the foregoing, the Parties therefore request that the Court
enter this Stipulated Partial Judgment finding that BlackBerry has not infringed
and does not infringe directly and/or indirectly, independent claims 33 and 34 and
dependent claims 2, 10, 15 and 23 of the ‘774 patent, independent claims 2 and 5
and dependent claim 3 of the ‘108 patent, and any other claims depending
therefrom.
5. It is provided, however, that if the Court’s findings as set forth in
Collateral Estoppel Order are reversed, changed, or modified on appeal such that
the matter is remanded for further consideration in any respect, the Parties reserve
all of their claims, arguments and defenses.
6. BlackBerry hereby dismisses without prejudice its counterclaims of
patent invalidity and non-infringement, as well as all other counterclaims and
defenses, with respect to the ’774 patent and the ’108 patent, and further reserves
the right to re-assert all such counterclaims and defenses should e.Digital or any
successor in interest accuse BlackBerry of infringement of the ’774 and/or the ’108
patent at any later point in time.
7. Accordingly, the Court enters this Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-
Infringement in favor of BlackBerry on e.Digital’s claim for infringement of
independent claims 33 and 34 and dependent claims 2, 10, 15 and 23 of the ’774
patent, independent claims 2 and 5 and dependent claim 3 of the ’108 patent, and
any other claims depending therefrom.
8. BlackBerry reserves its rights to seek costs and attorneys’ fees related
to e.Digital’s claims for infringement of the ‘774 and the ‘108 patents asserted in
this action.
9. This Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-Infringement is without
prejudice to the Parties’ rights to appeal the Court’s Collateral Estoppel Order
and/or any prior or future orders issued by the Court in this matter.
10. All issues relating to attorneys’ fees and/or costs are reserved pending
the outcome of the Parties’ remaining disputes, and the deadlines for filing any and
all motions seeking attorneys’ fees and/or costs shall be set by the Court after the
Parties’ remaining disputes are resolved.
11. For the sake of clarity, this Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-
Infringement is not a final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and, if so
necessary, is to be merged and/or become part of any final judgment entered in this
matter and may be incorporated as an exhibit thereto.
Dated: September 30, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
prejudice to the Parties’ rights to appeal the Court’s Collateral Estoppel Order
and/or any prior or future orders issued by the Court in this matter.
10. All issues relating to attorneys’ fees and/or costs are reserved pending
the outcome of the Parties’ remaining disputes, and the deadlines for filing any and
all motions seeking attorneys’ fees and/or costs shall be set by the Court after the
Parties’ remaining disputes are resolved.
11. For the sake of clarity, this Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-
Infringement is not a final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and, if so
necessary, is to be merged and/or become part of any final judgment entered in this
matter and may be incorporated as an exhibit thereto.
Dated: September 30, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply