Sunstone Dental, LLC v. Kavo Dental GMBH et al, No. 2:2009cv02147 - Document 75 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: JUDGMENT upon stipulation 73 by Judge Otis D Wright, II: 1. Sunstones claim for patent infringement against Kavo and KaVo Dental, GmbH is dismissed with prejudice because that claim and KaVos declaratory judgment counterclaim of noninfringement have been decided on the merits. 2. KaVos declaratory judgment counterclaim for invalidity of the 896 patent is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That counterclaim may be refiled by KaVo if the Co urts Summary Judgment Order and/or Final Judgment in this case is reversed or vacated on any appeal.3. KaVo is awarded its costs and may file a bill of costs and/or motionfor attorneys fees under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure wit hin 30 days after a mandate issues from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in the event this Courts Summary Judgment Order and/or Final Judgment is not vacated or reversed on appeal, or 20 days after the deadline passes for filing a Notice of Appeal, in the event Sunstone does not file a Notice of Appeal. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sunstone Dental, LLC v. Kavo Dental GMBH et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Doc. 75 KARIN G. PAGNANELLI (SBN 174763) kgp@msk.com MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 11377 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90064-1683 Telephone: (310) 312-2000 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100 JS-6 DAVID G. MANGUM (pro hac vice) C. KEVIN SPEIRS (pro hac vice) MICHAEL R. McCARTHY (pro hac vice) ecf@parsonsbehle.com PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1234 Facsimile: (801) 536-6111 Attorneys for Defendant KAVO DENTAL CORPORATION 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SUNSTONE DENTAL, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. CV09-02147 ODW (PJWx) The Honorable Otis D. Wright II FINAL JUDGMENT 19 KAVO DENTAL GMBH, a business form unknown; KAVO DENTAL CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, 20 Defendants. 18 21 22 KAVO DENTAL CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, 23 24 25 26 Counterclaimant, v. SUNSTONE DENTAL LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Counterclaim defendant. 27 28 4812-0296-3974.1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Court enters Final Judgment as follows: 2 In its Complaint, plaintiff and counterclaim defendant Sunstone Dental LLC 3 (“Sunstone”) accused defendant and counterclaimant KaVo Dental Corporation 4 (“KaVo”) and KaVo Dental, GmbH, of infringement of United States Patent No. 5 5,554,896 (“the ’896 patent”) through the making, importing, distributing, using, 6 selling, and/or offering for sale of certain products, including products marketed 7 under the name “ELECTROtorque” (collectively “accused products”). 8 In response to Sunstone’s Complaint, KaVo asserted various defenses and 9 asserted declaratory judgment counterclaims for noninfringement and invalidity of 10 the ’896 patent. In response to KaVo’s counterclaims, Sunstone asserted various 11 defenses. 12 Following a Markman hearing on April 12, 2010, this Court issued a Claim 13 Construction Order [Dkt. # 55] on May 13, 2010, interpreting certain terms in the 14 ’896 patent claims. 15 On August 10, 2010, KaVo filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for 16 Noninfringement Based on the Court’s Claim Construction. After full briefing by 17 the parties, and after holding a hearing on the motion on October 18, 2010, this 18 Court orally granted the motion at that hearing. 19 Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement [Dkt. # 20 71] on October 22, 2010. Based on the Court’s interpretations of the claim terms 21 “variable voltage controller” in claims 1-4 and 16, “foot controller” in claims 5-14 22 and 17-20, and “variable power controller” in claim 15, this Court held that KaVo 23 did not infringe any of claims 1 through 20 of the ’896 patent. The Court issued an Order 24 As a result, Sunstone’s only claim in the lawsuit – the claim for infringement 25 of the ’896 patent – has been decided on the merits and is dismissed with 26 prejudice. KaVo’s declaratory judgment counterclaim for noninfringement of that 27 patent has likewise been decided on the merits for the same reason. 28 // 4812-0296-3974.1 2 1 On November 1, 2010, Sunstone and KaVo filed a Stipulation wherein, 2 among other things, they agreed to dismissal of Sunstone’s claim for infringement 3 of the ’896 patent against KaVo Dental, GmbH, a named defendant who has never 4 been served in this case, for the same reasons expressed in the Court’s Summary 5 Judgment Order; and agreed to dismissal, without prejudice of KaVo’s declaratory 6 judgment counterclaim for invalidity of the ’896 patent under Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(c). 8 Because there are no remaining claims in this case, and because there are no 9 remaining issues for the Court to decide and no reason why Final Judgment should 10 not be entered, based on the Court’s Claim Construction Order, the Court’s 11 Summary Judgment Order, and the parties Stipulation, 12 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 13 1. Sunstone’s claim for patent infringement against Kavo and KaVo 14 Dental, GmbH is dismissed with prejudice because that claim and KaVo’s 15 declaratory judgment counterclaim of noninfringement have been decided on the 16 merits. 17 2. KaVo’s declaratory judgment counterclaim for invalidity of the ’896 18 patent is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules 19 of Civil Procedure. That counterclaim may be refiled by KaVo if the Court’s 20 Summary Judgment Order and/or Final Judgment in this case is reversed or 21 vacated on any appeal. 22 3. KaVo is awarded its costs and may file a bill of costs and/or motion 23 for attorneys’ fees under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within 24 30 days after a mandate issues from the United States Court of Appeals for the 25 Federal Circuit, in the event this Court’s Summary Judgment Order and/or Final 26 Judgment is not vacated or reversed on appeal, or 20 days after the deadline passes 27 for filing a Notice of Appeal, in the event Sunstone does not file a Notice of 28 Appeal. 4812-0296-3974.1 3 1 4. All defenses of Sunstone and KaVo are preserved and may be 2 reasserted, if necessary, if this Court’s Summary Judgment Order and/or Final 3 Judgment in this case is reversed or vacated on any appeal. 4 WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that plaintiff and counterclaim defendant 5 Sunstone Dental, LLC take nothing, that this lawsuit is dismissed on the merits, 6 and the case closed. 7 8 ENTERED on November 3, 2010. 9 10 ______________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT II United States District Judge 11 12 13 Approved as to form: 14 By: 15 16 /s/ David G. Mangum Karin G. Pagnanelli MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP David G. Mangum C. Kevin Speirs Michael R. McCarthy PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 By: /s/ William D. Chapman Steven C. Smith William D. Chapman Robert J. Hadlock SMITH CHAPMAN & CAMPBELL William C. Bollard JULANDER, BROWN & BOLLARD 25 26 27 28 4812-0296-3974.1 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
