Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05826/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05826-39/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 12-cv-05826-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE INVALIDITY FINDINGS

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MOBILEIRON, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-05826-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

VACATE INVALIDITY FINDINGS

(Re: Docket No. 546, 561)

Vacating orders is hard enough when you think you got it wrong. Vacating them when 

you think you got it right is nearly impossible. Orders to a judge are like offspring: nurtured, 

loved and consuming of vast personal resources. But the reality is that sometimes after an order is 

issued, parties can resolve their differences so long as the order is vacated. It’s all in the nature of 

cutting the deal.

In this case, after a long, hard slog through discovery, dispositive motion practice and trial, 

the parties have settled their dispute.1 As one deal term, they have agreed that Plaintiffs Good 

Technology Corporation and Good Technologies Software, Inc. may file an unopposed motion to 

vacate an order by the court invalidating certain claims of United States Patent No. 6,151,606 for 

insufficient written description.2 Good also seeks to vacate, without opposition, the jury’s 

findings that the asserted claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,970,386 and 8,012,219 are 

 

1

See Docket No. 558.

2

See Docket No. 424 at 8-9; Docket No. 559 at 1.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 562 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 12-cv-05826-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE INVALIDITY FINDINGS

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

Northern District of California

obvious.

3

 In the Ninth Circuit, a district court’s discretion to vacate such orders and findings is 

well-established. While appellate courts are more restricted,4because of “the fact-intensive nature 

of the inquiry required,” district courts exercise “greater equitable discretion when reviewing 

[their] own judgments.”

5

 This is just as true in the context of settlements.6

Applying the appropriate “equitable balancing test” here,7and its various relevant factors, 

such as collateral estoppel effect, settlement incentives, public ownership of judicial decisions and 

expenditure of court resources, the court is persuaded that vacating the order and findings at issue 

is appropriate. While judicial decisions are not the private assets of the parties and instead belong 

to the “legal community as a whole,”

8

no judgment has yet entered, rendering the findings and 

orders at issue non-final. Even with a final judgment, the court cannot say that they would be 

given preclusive effect by another court. Whatever resources were spent by judge and jury, the 

effort was hardly a waste if it got the parties to make peace. If nothing else, it would be difficult 

to square a refusal to vacate on this basis with this court and others’ constant lament that parties 

should work harder to resolve their differences on their own. 

Good’s motion to vacate9is GRANTED. Good’s motion for judgment as a matter of law10

is DENIED AS MOOT.

 

3

See Docket No. 543 at 5-6.

4

See U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994).

5

Am. Games, Inc. v. Trade Prods., Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 1998).

6

See id. at 1169.

7

Id. at 1167, 1169.

8

Bonner Mall, 513 U.S. at 26 (citation omitted).

9

See Docket No. 561.

10 See Docket No. 546.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 562 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 12-cv-05826-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE INVALIDITY FINDINGS

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

Northern District of California

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 562 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 3