Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 3:2016cv03582 - Document 180 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on 1/4/2018. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2018)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Doc. 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 No. C 16-03582 WHA v. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR FINAL JUDGMENT APPLE INC., Defendant. / 16 A prior order granted defendant Apple Inc.’s motion for summary judgment of 17 noninfringement as to all but one of the patents-in-suit in this action (Dkt. No. 169). That very 18 same order also granted summary judgment of noninfringement as to all asserted patents in a 19 related action, where judgment has already been entered against plaintiff Straight Path IP 20 Group, Inc. See Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Case No. 16-3463 (Dkt. No. 21 180). In the above-captioned action, subsequent orders stayed all proceedings in connection 22 with the sole remaining patent-in-suit and the issue of attorney’s fees (see Dkt. Nos. 171, 179). 23 Straight Path has proposed that the Court enter judgment on the patents covered by the 24 summary judgment order in both related actions, and has further agreed to dismiss its claims 25 regarding the sole remaining patent-in-suit in this action if it is unsuccessful on appeal. Apple 26 did not oppose this proposal (see Dkt. Nos. 161–62). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) 27 provides that when an action presents more than one claim for relief, “the court may direct entry 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court 2 expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” In deciding whether to enter final 3 judgment, the court should consider “judicial administrative interests as well as the equities 4 involved,” including “whether the claims under review were separable from the others 5 remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined was such 6 that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were 7 subsequent appeals.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). 8 9 Under these circumstances, this order finds there is no just reason to delay judgment in favor of Apple on the patents covered by the summary judgment order. The issues remaining to be adjudicated are legally distinct and severable from those addressed by the summary 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 judgment order. Moreover, entry of judgment in this action will permit an efficient and 12 cohesive appeal from that order on the same issues in both related actions. And, as stated, the 13 parties have agreed that Straight Path will dismiss its claims regarding the sole remaining 14 patent-in-suit in this action if it is unsuccessful on appeal. This order therefore concludes entry 15 of judgment is proper here pursuant to FRCP 54(b). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: January 4, 2018. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 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.
