Uniloc Luxembourg SA et al v. Pulse Systems Inc, No. 2:2013cv03246 - Document 12 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. (SEE ATTACHMENT FINAL JUDGMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS). The Court hereby enters JUDGMENT of non-infringement of the '526 Patent in favor of Pulse on Counts 1-3 of Uniloc's Complaint against Pulse. eClinicalWorks and Pulse, as prevailing parties, are entitled to recover costs pursuant to FRCP 54(d)(1) and C.D. Cal. L.R. 54 from Uniloc in an amount to be determined by the Court. The parties reserve all rights on appeal with respect to this Final Judgment. The Clerk is directed to enter this Judgment. (Case CLOSED). (jp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Uniloc Luxembourg SA et al v. Pulse Systems Inc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C. Los Angeles, California 12 13 Doc. 12 MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C. LAWRENCE M. HADLEY (SBN 157728) lhadley@mckoolsmithhennigan.com ALAN P. BLOCK (SBN 143783) ablock@mckoolsmithhennigan.com JEFFREY HUANG (SBN 266774) jhuang@mckoolsmithhennigan.com 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 694-1200 - Telephone (213) 694-1234 - Facsimile CLOSED ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP JIM ETHERIDGE (SBN 158629) Jim@etheridgelaw.com 2600 East Southlake Blvd. Southlake, TX 76092 (817) 470-7249 - Telephone (817) 887-5950 - Facsimile Attorneys for UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A. and UNILOC USA, INC. [SEE ATTACHED PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL COUNSEL] 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 19 UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., and UNILOC USA, INC. Plaintiffs, 20 21 22 vs. e CLINICAL WORKS, LLC AND PULSE SYSTEMS INC., Defendants. 23 24 25 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV-13-3244- MWF (PLAx) Case No. CV-13-3246-MWF (PLAx) (CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS) FINAL JUDGMENT 26 27 28 cv13-03244 MWF (PLAx) [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 John W. Amberg, Email: jwamberg@bryancave.com Shelly C. Gopaul, Email: shelly.gopaul@bryancave.com BRYAN CAVE LLP 120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386 Keith Aurzada, Email: keith.aurzada@bryancave.com BRYAN CAVE LLP JPMorgan Chase Tower, Suite 3300 2200 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 10 11 MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C. Los angeles, California 12 13 14 15 Ryan T. Pumpian, Email: ryan.pumpian@bryancave.com BRYAN CAVE LLP One Atlantic Center Fourteenth Floor 1201 W. Peachtree St., NW Atlanta, GA 30309 Attorneys for Defendant eClinicalWorks, LLC 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Matthew L. Marshall mmarshall@mpplaw.com Derek A. Simpson dsimpson@mmpplaw.com MORRS POLICH & PURY LLP 1055 W. Seventh Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles Ca 90017 Don V. Kelly (admitted Pro Hac Vice) dkelly@evans-dixon.com EVANS & DIXON, LLC Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 2500 Saint Louis, Missouri 63102 Attorneys for Defendant Pulse Systems, Inc. 27 28 -211-CV-10122-MWF (PLAX) [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 1 This Court entered an Amended Order Granting Defendants’ Motions for 2 Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Denying as Moot Defendants’ Motion 3 for Summary Judgment of Invalidity effective August 29, 2013 (Dkt. 102, the 4 “Order”)). Although the Court directed the Clerk to treat the Order, and its entry on 5 the docket, as entry of judgment, the Order did not dispose of Defendants’ 6 counterclaims. Therefore, consistent with the Order and pursuant to the parties’ 7 stipulation regarding the Defendants’ Counterclaims, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 8 ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows. 9 (1) On Uniloc Luxembourg SA and Uniloc USA, Inc.’s (“Uniloc”) claims for relief against Defendant eClinicalWorks LLC (“eClinicalWorks”) for 11 direct patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Count One), indirect 12 MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C. Los angeles, California 10 patent infringement based on inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) 13 (Count Two), and contributory patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 14 271(c) (Count Three), eClinicalWorks does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 15 5,682,526 (“the ’526 patent”). The Court hereby enters JUDGMENT of 16 non-infringement of the '526 Patent in favor of eClinicalWorks on Counts 17 1-3 of Uniloc's Complaint against eClinicalWorks. 18 (2) On Uniloc’s claims for relief against Defendant Pulse Systems, Inc. 19 (“Pulse”) for direct patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Count 20 One), indirect patent infringement based on inducement under 35 U.S.C. 21 § 271(b) (Count Two), and contributory patent infringement under 35 22 U.S.C. § 271(c) (Count Three), Pulse does not infringe the ’526 patent. 23 The Court hereby enters JUDGMENT of non-infringement of the '526 24 Patent in favor of Pulse on Counts 1-3 of Uniloc's Complaint against 25 Pulse. 26 (3) 27 On Count One of Pulse’s Counterclaim seeking a declaration that Pulse has not infringed the ‘526 Patent, the Court’s judgment herein on 28 -1CV13-03244 MWF (PLAX) 921323 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 1 Uniloc’s claims renders this Count of the Counterclaim moot. Thus, this 2 Count is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Pulse is free to assert the claims of this Count in the 4 event this matter is remanded for any reason, including for further 5 consideration. 6 (4) With regard to Count One of eClinicalWorks’ Counterclaim and Count 7 Two of Pulse’s Counterclaim, both of which seek a declaration that the 8 ‘526 Patent is invalid, the Court determined that its resolution of 9 Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on non-infringement rendered moot Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment of 11 Invalidity. Consistent with this ruling, Count One of eClinicalWorks' 12 MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C. Los angeles, California 10 Counterclaim and Count Two of Pulse's Counterclaim are dismissed 13 without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 14 eClinicalWorks and Pulse are free to assert their respective claims of 15 these counts of the Counterclaims in the event this matter is remanded 16 for any reason, including for further consideration. 17 (5) eClinicalWorks and Pulse, as prevailing parties, are entitled to recover 18 costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and C.D. Cal. L.R. 54 from 19 Uniloc in an amount to be determined by the Court. 20 (6) 21 The parties reserve all rights on appeal with respect to this Final Judgment. 22 The Clerk is directed to enter this Judgment. 23 24 DATED: September 29, 2014 By: _____________________________ The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald United States District Court Judge 25 26 27 28 -2CV13-03244 MWF (PLAX) 921323 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
]]>
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.
