-AGR Edge Systems Corporation et al v. Bio-Therapeutic Inc, No. 2:2011cv04993 - Document 26 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: STIPULATED PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE; ORDER by Judge John F. Walter. Pursuant to 35 USC 283, as of the date of this Court's Order, BT, and any of its employees, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, directors, principals , officers, successors, and assigns, and all others acting in concert or participation with BT who receive actual notice of this Order, SHALL BE PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED. BT has waived any appeal of the Stipulated Permanent Injunction. Eac h of the parties SHALL BEAR ITS OWN COSTS AND ITS OWN ATTORNEYS' FEES. This is a final judgment. Subject to this Court's limited retention of jurisdiction as set forth above, all claims and counterclaims filed in this action SHALL BE DISMISSED from this action WITH PREJUDICE. Having addressed each of the claims and counterclaims in thisaction, this case SHALL BE CLOSED. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

Download PDF
-AGR Edge Systems Corporation et al v. Bio-Therapeutic Inc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Doc. 26 Brenton R. Babcock (SBN 162,120) bbabcock@kmob.com Kent Shum (SBN 259,189) kent.shum@kmob.com KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 2040 Main Street Fourteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 760-0404 Facsimile: (949) 760-9502 JS-6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs EDGE SYSTEMS CORPORATION and AXIA MEDSCIENCES, LLC Michael J. Song (SBN 243675) MSong@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Telephone: (310) 788-9900 Facsimile: (310) 788-3399 Attorneys for Defendants BIO-THERAPEUTIC, INC. and MICRO CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, INC. 14 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 WESTERN DIVISION 18 19 20 EDGE SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a California corporation, and AXIA MEDSCIENCES, LLC,, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiffs, 21 22 23 24 25 26 v. BIO-THERAPEUTIC, INC., a Washington corporation, and MICRO CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Washington corporation, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-04993-JFW-(AGRx) STIPULATED PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE; ORDER THEREON 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 This case having come before this Court, and it being represented to the 2 Court that Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Edge Systems Corporation 3 and Axia MedSciences, LLC (collectively “Edge”) and Defendants and 4 Counterclaimants Micro Current Technology, Inc., d/b/a Bio-Therapeutic, Inc. 5 (“BT”) have compromised and settled the matters in dispute, IT IS HEREBY 6 ORDERED, ADJUDICATED and DECREED as follows: 7 PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER Having considered the STIPULATION of the parties, and for good cause 8 9 shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. 10 11 This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. 12 2. Venue is proper in this judicial district. 13 3. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, as of the date of this Court’s Order, 14 BT, and any of its employees, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, directors, 15 principals, officers, successors, and assigns, and all others acting in concert or 16 participation with BT who receive actual notice of this Order, SHALL BE 17 PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from all importing, 18 manufacturing, marketing, advertising, using, offering for sale, and selling of all 19 “wet” microdermabrasion machines and machine-specific accessories in the 20 United States (with the following exception to the aforementioned “offering for 21 sale”: 22 Seattle, Washington (i.e., phone calls and paperwork), but the products offered 23 for sale by BT shall be manufactured outside the United States, shall be 24 delivered to the end customer outside the United States, and shall never enter 25 the United States), which includes the following products: 26 BT is permitted to coordinate foreign-to-foreign transactions from a. The accused “wet” microdermabrasion machines and machine- 27 specific accessories, including: the accused BT Bio-Hydroderm 28 microdermabrasion machine, the accused BT Bio-Hydrotip -1- 1 microdermabrasion machine, and the accused BT AQUAFUSE 2 microdermabrasion fluid (and any other consumable) in containers 3 designed to fit such machines; 4 b. Any “wet” microdermabrasion machine (i.e., a machine that has 5 the capability of both delivering a fluid and using an abrasive tip, 6 either simultaneously or sequentially) that is not colorably different 7 from the accused “wet” microdermabrasion machines with respect 8 to the claims of the asserted patents; 9 c. Any microdermabrasion machine that has the capability of both 10 delivering a fluid and using an abrasive tip, either simultaneously 11 or sequentially; 12 d. The phrase “microdermabrasion machines and machine-specific 13 accessories” as used herein includes all tips, fluids, and other 14 consumables used in conjunction with a “wet” microdermabrasion 15 system that are specifically adapted for use with such a system, 16 including BT’s accused “wet” microdermabrasion systems and 17 Edge’s “wet” microdermabrasion systems, but does not include any 18 tips, fluids, or other consumables that are designed generically such 19 that they could be used with a “dry” microdermabrasion machine 20 (as defined below) or fluids that are used topically and applied by 21 hand; and 22 e. A “dry” microdermabrasion machine is defined as any 23 microdermabrasion machine that uses crystals or an abrasive tip but 24 (a) does not deliver a fluid and (b) cannot be adapted for use with a 25 fluid without significant modification. 26 4. This Court SHALL RETAIN JURISDICTION of this action to the 27 extent necessary to ensure full compliance with all obligations imposed by the 28 Permanent Injunction Order, including the enforcement this Stipulated -2- 1 Permanent Injunction by way of contempt or otherwise. The obligations of the 2 parties, as set forth in the Stipulated Permanent Injunction SHALL BE 3 ENFORCED, if necessary, exclusively by this Court. 5. 4 If in the future either party files suit against the other party vis-à- 5 vis the Asserted Patents, the filing party SHALL FILE SUIT in the United 6 States District Court for the Central District of California and, pursuant to Local 7 Rule 4.3.1, simultaneously file a Notice of Related Case with the Court 8 identifying this dismissed action. 9 6. BT has waived any appeal of the Stipulated Permanent Injunction. 10 7. Each of the parties SHALL BEAR ITS OWN COSTS AND ITS 11 OWN ATTORNEYS' FEES. 8. 12 This is a final judgment. Subject to this Court's limited retention of 13 jurisdiction as set forth above, all claims and counterclaims filed in this action 14 SHALL BE DISMISSED from this action WITH PREJUDICE. 9. 15 16 Having addressed each of the claims and counterclaims in this action, this case SHALL BE CLOSED. 17 18 19 Dated: October 12, 2011 DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 20 21 11820536 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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.