Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01115/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01115-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVERA MEDICAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Counterdefendant,

Case Nos. 11-cv-1115-H (RBB)

 12-cv-1581-H (RBB)

ORDER ON PARTIES’

STIPULATION OF

DISMISSAL AND DEADLINE

TO SEEK FEES AND COSTS

[Doc. No. 129.]

vs.

EXCELSIOR MEDICAL

CORPORATION,

Defendant-Counterplaintiff.

In this consolidated patent infringement action, Plaintiff asserts three claims

against Defendant for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,780,794 (“the ‘794 patent”),

7,985,302 (“the ‘302 patent”), and 8,206,514 (“the ‘514 patent”) (collectively, the

“patents-in-suit”). (See [1115] Doc. No. 21, First Amended Complaint; [1581] Doc.

1 2

No. 6, First Amended Complaint.) Defendant asserted counterclaims that it did not

infringe the patents-in-suit, that the patents-in-suit are invalid, and that the

patents-in-suit are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. (See [1115] Doc. No. 24;

“[1115]” refersto Ivera MedicalCorporation v. Excelsior Medical Corporation,

1

No. 11-cv-1115-H.

“[1581]” refers to Ivera Medical Corporation v. Excelsior Medical Corporation, No. 2

12-cv-1581-H.

- 1 - 11cv1115; 12cv1581

Case 3:11-cv-01115-H-RBB Document 130 Filed 06/11/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[1581] Doc. No. 9.) On April 29, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment for

Defendant and invalidated the patents-in-suit for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §

103(a). ([1115] Doc. No. 119.) On June 5, 2014, the Court ordered the partiesto show

cause why it should not deny all pending claims as moot. (Id. Doc. No. 128.) On June

9, 2014, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss Defendant’s pending

counterclaims without prejudice and request preserve their rights to seek attorneys’fees

after appellate review of the Court’s order. (Doc. No. 129.)

The Court, for good cause shown, grants the stipulated dismissal and enters

judgment for Defendant Excelsior. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). The Court dismisses without

prejudiceDefendant’s noninfringement and unenforceability counterclaims. TheCourt

further orders as follows:

1. The Court permits the parties to seek attorneys’ fees and costs under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 after appellate review; and

2. The Court enters final judgment for Defendant Excelsior. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 11, 2014

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 2 - 11cv1115; 12cv1581

Case 3:11-cv-01115-H-RBB Document 130 Filed 06/11/14 Page 2 of 2