-DTB Futurelogic Inc v. Nanoptix Inc, No. 2:2010cv07678 - Document 124 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge John F. Walter. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that US Patent No. 7,594,855 is invalid under 35 USC section 102(b); Plaintiff's Complaint and Defendant's counterclaim are dismissed without prejudice as moot; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary of Infringement of the 855 Patent 69 is DENIED; Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer 64 is DENIED; and Defendant is entitled to costs as the prevailing party. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DTB Futurelogic Inc v. Nanoptix Inc Doc. 124 1 2 3 4 JS-6 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 FUTURELOGIC, INC., Case No. 2:10-CV-7678-JFW (DTB) Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, FINAL JUDGMENT v. NANOPTIX, INC, Defendant/Counterclaimant. 19 / 20 21 22 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,855 (“’855 Patent”), Docket No. 55, came before the Hon. John F. Walter, 23 24 25 26 District Judge Presiding. The evidence presented having been fully considered and a decision having been fully rendered on November 2, 2011, in the Court’s Order, Docket No. 121, the Court enters final judgment as follows: 27 28 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: Proposed Final Judgment -1Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 1. U.S. Patent No. 7,59 94,855 is i invalid und 35 U.S.C. § 102(b der b); 2. Plaintiff’s Complain and Def s nt fendant’s c counterclaim for declaratory m 4 judgment of noninfr t ringement, and all de , efenses and countercl d laims other r 5 than for in nvalidity under 35 U u U.S.C. § 102 2(b), are d dismissed w without 6 prejudice as moot; 7 8 3. 9 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summar Judgme of Infrin s fo ary ent ngement o the ‘855 of Patent, Docket No. 69, is deni ied; 10 11 4. Defendan Motion for Leave to File A nt’s n e Amended A Answer with h 12 Inequitable Conduct Counterc claim and D Defense, D Docket No. 64, is 13 denied; an nd 14 15 5. Defendan is entitled to costs a the prev nt as vailing part ty. 16 17 18 Dated: Nove ember 15, 2011 19 ____ _________ _________ _________ ____ JOHN F. WALT N TER UNI ITED STA ATES DIST TRICT JUD DGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pr roposed Fina al Ju udgment -2 -
]]>
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.
