Karl Storz Imaging, Inc. v. Pointe Conception Medical, Inc.
Filing
306
JUDGMENT by Judge Gary A. Feess. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant shall have judgment in its favor against Plaintiff on all of Plaintiff's Claims and on Defendant's counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No.7,212,227. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff take nothing and that Defendant shall have its costs of suit. (bp)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KARL STORZ IMAGING, INC., a
California corporation,
) Case No.: CV09-08070 GAF (Ex)
)
) JUDGMENT
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
POINTE CONCEPTION MEDICAL, )
INC., a Delaware corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
________________________________ )
)
POINTE CONCEPTION MEDICAL, )
INC., a Delaware corporation,
)
)
Counterclaimant,
)
)
v.
)
)
KARL STORZ IMAGING, INC., a
)
California corporation,
)
)
Counterdefendant.
)
1
Pursuant to the Court’s August 1, 2011 Order: denying summary judgment
2
to plaintiff Karl Storz Imaging, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) on its claim for infringement of
3
U.S. Patent No. 7,212,227; granting summary judgment to defendant Pointe
4
Conception Medical, Inc. (“Defendant”) on Plaintiff’s claim for infringement of
5
U.S. Patent No. 7,212,227 and on Defendant’s counterclaim for declaratory
6
judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,212,227; and granting
7
summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s trademark claims for (1) trademark
8
infringement in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114, (2) federal unfair
9
competition and false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act, 15
10
U.S.C. §1125, (3) common law trademark infringement; (4) unfair business
11
practices under California’s unfair competition law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.
12
Code § 17200 et seq., and (5) common law unfair competition; and
13
Pursuant to the Court’s August 1, 2011 Minute Order exercising its
14
discretion to dismiss PCM’s counterclaims of invalidity and unenforceability
15
without prejudice to reinstating them in the event that the Court’s Order on the
16
patent infringement claim is reversed on appeal:
17
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant
18
shall have judgment in its favor against Plaintiff on all of Plaintiff’s Claims and on
19
Defendant’s counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S.
20
Patent No. 7,212,227.
21
22
23
24
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff
take nothing and that Defendant shall have its costs of suit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 6, 2011
By:________________________________
Gary Allen Feess
United States District Judge
]]>
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?
