EDIG v.Fujifilm - STIPULATED PARTIAL JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
in response to
by
Message: EDIG v.Fujifilm - STIPULATED PARTIAL JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
28
Oct 02, 2013 11:51AM
1
Oct 02, 2013 12:06PM
2
Oct 02, 2013 12:10PM
5
Oct 02, 2013 12:23PM
3
Oct 02, 2013 02:14PM
11
Oct 02, 2013 02:42PM
3
Oct 02, 2013 02:47PM
FUJIFILM Corporation; FUJIFILM
Holdings Corporation; FUJIFILM
Holdings America Corporation; et al.
Defendant.
Case No. 3:13-cv-0112-DMS-WVG
STIPULATED PARTIAL JUDGMENT
Assigned to the
Honorable Judge Dana M. Sabraw
Ctrm: 13A (Annex)
STIPULATED PARTIAL JUDGMENT
OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff and Counter-
Defendant e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”) and
Defendant and Counterclaimant FUJIFILM Corporation; FUJIFILM Holdings
Corporation; FUJIFILM Holdings America Corporation (collectively,
“FUJIFILM”) 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 FUJIFILM 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, as
set forth in e.Digital’s Complaint (Dkt #1) and Preliminary Infringement
Contentions (“PICs”) served on June 26, 2013.
2. On August 22, 2013, the Honorable Judge Dana M. Sabraw issued an
Order granting FUJIFILM ’s motion to apply collateral estoppel with respect to the
construction of the term “sole memory of the received processed sound elec
trical
signals” in the asserted claims of the ’774 patent as determined 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.) (Dkt. No. 59 (“Collateral
Estoppel
Order”).
3. As set forth in the Collateral Estoppel Order, the Court found that the
elements of issue preclusion were met in this matter and, therefore, that e.Digital is
precluded from relitigating the construction of the term “sole memory of the
recei
ved processed sound electrical signals” as contained in the asserted claims 33
and 34 of the ’774 patent. (
Id.) The Court further found that fairness and public
policy favor application of issue preclusion in this matter. (
Id.)
4. In view of the foregoing, the Parties therefore request that the Court
enter this Stipulated Partial Judgment finding that FUJIFILM has not infringed and
does not infringe directly and/or indirectly, whether literally or under the doctrine
of equivalents, independent claims 33 and 34 and dependent claims 2, 10, 15 and
23 of the ‘774 patent and any other claims depending therefrom.
5. It is provided, however, that if the Collateral Estoppel Order is
reversed or modified in a manner that would allow e.Digital to relitigate the
construction of the term “sole memory of the received processed sound electrical
signals” as contained in the asserted claims of the ’774 patent, the Parties reserve
all of their claims, arguments and defenses relating to that term.
6. Accordingly, the Court enters this Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-
Infringement (a) in favor of FUJIFILM 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 and any other claims depending therefrom, and (b) in favor of FUJIFILM on
FUJIFILM’s Counterclaim Count V for non
-infringement of independent claims
33 and 34 and dependent claims 2, 10, 15 and 23 of the ’774 patent and any other
claims depending therefrom.
7. FUJIFILM hereby dismisses without prejudice its Counterclaim
Count VI for invalidity of the ’774 patent, as well as all other defenses with respect
to the ’774 patent, and reserves the right to re
-assert all counterclaims and
defenses relating to the ’774 patent should e.Digital or successor in interest
accuse FUJIFILM of infringement of the ’774 patent at any later point in time.
8. 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, and is without
prejudice to any claim for attorneys’ fees and/or costs under any basis, including
without limitation Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 54(d), and 35 U.S.C. § 285.
9. 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.
10. 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: October 1, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply