Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. et al v. Philcor T.V. Electronic Leasing, Inc., No. 2:2018cv00383 - Document 21 (D. Nev. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 20 Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/31/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. et al v. Philcor T.V. Electronic Leasing, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NICHOLAS J. SANTORO (Nev. Bar No. 532) JASON D. SMITH (Nev. Bar No. 9691) SANTORO WHITMIRE 10100 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Tel.: (702) 948-8771 / Fax: (702) 948-8773 E-mail: nsantoro@santoronevada.com jsmith@santoronevada.com MICHAEL EISENBERG (pro hac vice admitted) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, New York 10019 Tel.: (212) 513-3529 / Fax: (212) 385-9010 Email: michael.eisenberg@hklaw.com 13 STACEY H. WANG (pro hac vice admitted) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel.: (213) 896-2400 / Fax: (213) 896-2450 Email: stacey.wang@hklaw.com 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 12 Doc. 21 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17 18 SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD. and SEOUL VIOSYS, CO., LTD. 19 Plaintiffs, 20 vs. 21 PHILCOR T.V. & ELECTRONIC LEASING, INC. d/b/a ENERGYAVENUE.COM, 22 23 24 25 26 Case No.: 2:18-cv-00383-RFB-NJK STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT Defendants. Plaintiffs Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. and Viosys Co., Ltd. (collectively “Seoul”) and Defendant Philcor T.V. & Electronic Leasing, Inc. dba Energyavenue.com (“Philcor”) stipulate to entry of Consent Judgment against Philcor and in favor of Seoul on Seoul’s claim of patent 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 infringement, and any potential defenses or counterclaims, including any defense of non- 2 infringement or invalidity. The stipulation is based upon the following: 3 4 1. Seoul alleges, and Philcor does not dispute, that Philcor has sold lighting devices and/or LED light bulbs that were manufactured by third parties and infringe U.S. 5 6 7 Patent No. 9,627,435, U.S. Patent No. 9,093,627, U.S. Patent No. 9,577,157, U.S. Patent No. 7,700,960, U.S. Patent No. 8,168,988, U.S. Patent No. 8,860,331; U.S. 8 Patent No. 8,829,552; U.S. Patent No. 8,716,946; U.S. Patent No. 9,716,210; U.S. 9 Patent No. 7,951,626; U.S. Patent No. 9,450,155; and U.S. Patent No. 8,664,638 10 11 (collectively, “the Patents in Suit”) that are owned by Seoul. 2. Philcor does not contest that the Patents in Suit are valid. 12 3. The Parties therefore agree that a Consent Judgment should be entered in favor of 13 14 15 16 Seoul and against Philcor on Seoul’s claim of patent infringement of the Patents in Suit. Accordingly, the Parties stipulate and request that the Court enter the following Consent 17 Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 18 DATED this 13th day of August, 2018. DATED this 13th day of August, 2018 19 SANTORO WHITMIRE HOLLEY DRIGGS WALCH FINE WRAY PUZEY & THOMPSON /s/ Jason D. Smith Nicholas J. Santoro (Nev. Bar No. 532) Jason D. Smith (Nev. Bar 9691). 10100 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Tel.: (702) 948-8771 / Fax: (702) 948-8773 E-mail: nsantoro@santoronevada.com jsmith@santoronevada.com /s/ Brian W. Boschee Brian W. Boschee (Nev. Bar No. 7612) James D. Boyle (Nev. Bar. No. 8384) 400 South Fourth Street, Third Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Tel.: (702) 791-0308 / Fax: (702)791-1912 Email: bboschee@nevadafirm.com jboyle@nevadafirm.com Attorneys for Defendants 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Michael Eisenberg (pro hac vice admitted) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 31 West 52nd Street -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New York, New York 10019 Tel.: (212) 513-3529 / Fax: (212) 385-9010 Email: michael.eisenberg@hklaw.com Stacey H. Wang (pro hac vice admitted) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel.: (213) 896-2400 / Fax: (213) 896-2450 Email: stacey.wang@hklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 12 13 ________________________________ RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II ____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED DATED this 31st day of August, 2018. Dated: ___________________________ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- Exhibit A Consent Judgment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NICHOLAS J. SANTORO (Nev. Bar No. 532) JASON D. SMITH (Nev. Bar No. 9691) SANTORO WHITMIRE 10100 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Tel.: (702) 948-8771 / Fax: (702) 948-8773 E-mail: nsantoro@santoronevada.com jsmith@santoronevada.com MICHAEL EISENBERG (pro hac vice admitted) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, New York 10019 Tel.: (212) 513-3529 / Fax: (212) 385-9010 Email: michael.eisenberg@hklaw.com 13 STACEY H. WANG (pro hac vice admitted) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel.: (213) 896-2400 / Fax: (213) 896-2450 Email: stacey.wang@hklaw.com 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 12 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17 18 SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD. and SEOUL VIOSYS, CO., LTD. CONSENT JUDGMENT 19 Plaintiffs, 20 vs. 21 PHILCOR T.V. & ELECTRONIC LEASING, INC. d/b/a ENERGYAVENUE.COM, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 2:18-cv-00383-RFB-NJK Defendants. CONSENT JUDGMENT Based upon the Stipulation and Proposed Order for Entry of Consent Judgment submitted by Plaintiffs Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. and Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Seoul”) 1 and Philcor T.V. & Electronic Leasing, Inc. dba Energyavenue.com (“Philcor”), consent 2 judgment against Philcor and in favor of Seoul is hereby entered, as follows: 3 4 1. U.S. Patent No. 9,627,435, U.S. Patent No. 9,093,627, U.S. Patent No. 9,577,157, U.S. Patent No. 7,700,960, U.S. Patent No. 8,168,988, U.S. Patent No. 8,860,331; 5 6 7 U.S. Patent No. 8,829,552; U.S. Patent No. 8,716,946; U.S. Patent No. 9,716,210; U.S. Patent No. 7,951,626; U.S. Patent No. 9,450,155; and U.S. Patent No. 8,664,638 8 (collectively, “the Patents in Suit”) asserted by Seoul against Philcor in this matter are 9 not invalid. 10 11 2. Philcor has sold lighting devices and/or LED light bulbs that were manufactured by third parties and have been accused by Seoul in the above-captioned cases. Seoul 12 contends, and Philcor does not dispute, that such lighting devices and/or LED light 13 14 bulbs infringe the Patents in Suit. 15 3. Seoul and Philcor shall bear their own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. 16 4. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Consent 17 18 Judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 ____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 Dated: ___________________________ 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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.
