Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147-16/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

- 1 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RPA INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

ORDER

vs.

COMPACT INTNL INC, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Revise the Court’s Summary

Judgment Order and to Enter a Permanent Injunction (Doc. # 151) and Defendant Kok Cheong

Soo’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 163).

BACKGROUND

On May 26, 2006, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing the Complaint. (Doc. # 1).

The Complaint alleges Plaintiff Dennis Michael Krawchuck owns Plaintiff RPA International

Pty Ltd. and Plaintiff Nufurn, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”). The Complaint alleges that

Krawchuck is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6, 969, 113 (“the 113 patent”), entitled “Folding

Chair with Metal Inserts,” which was issued to Krawchuck on November 29, 2005. Id. at ¶ 4.

The Complaint alleges that the 113 patent concerns a resin folding chair invented by

Krawchuck known as the “Gladiator chair.” Id. The Complaint alleges Defendant Kok

Cheong Soo is a director of Defendant BZ Global Sdn. Bhd, and BZ Global (H.K.) Limited

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 12
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

- 2 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

(the “BZ Defendants”). Id. The Complaint alleges that Soo and the BZ Defendants infringed

the 113 patent “by knowingly and purposefully importing, using, offering to sell, and/or selling

infringing chairs within the United States” and by inducing others to do the same. Id. at ¶ 51-

52. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs have been harmed by this infringement and that they

will continue to be harmed unless the Court enters an injunction which bars Soo and the BZ

Defendants from further infringement. Id. at ¶ 53. The Complaint also seeks damages to

compensate Plaintiff for lost profits, as well as treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284,

and attorneys’ fees and costs. Id.

On May 25, 2007, Defendants PRE Sales, Inc. and Segal were dismissed from the

action. (Doc. # 72). On May 31, 2007, Defendant Soo filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses,

and Counterclaim. (Doc. # 74). Soo alleges that Plaintiffs RPA and Nufurn lack standing to

sue, the patent is invalid, that the patent is being misused, that Plaintiffs are barred from

recovery by unclean hands, that Soo is authorized to use the patent, that Defendants have not

infringed, that Plaintiffs have not lost profits, and that the patent is unenforceable. Id.

The Counterclaim alleges that Soo was an inventor of the patent, and that he reached

an agreement with RPA to receive five percent of the sales price of the newly designed chairs,

and ten percent if he was the source of the sale. Id. at ¶ 23. The Counterclaim alleges that Soo

assisted RPA in seeking patent protection for the Gladiator chair with the understanding that

he would be listed as an inventor. Id. at ¶ 24. The Counterclaim alleges that Soo is “the

actual inventor and designer” of the Gladiator chair. Id. The Counterclaim alleges that

Krawchuck listed himself as the sole inventor of the Gladiator chair, even though he was not,

in fact, the inventor. Id. The Counterclaim alleges that RPA failed to make payments to Soo

pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Id.

The Counterclaim alleges the following claims for relief: (1) correction of inventorship,

which seeks a declaration that Soo and/or Defendant Chee Choon Cheah are the inventors of

the 113 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256; (2) declaration and transfer of ownership, which

seeks a declaration that Soo and/or Cheah are the owners of the 113 patent; (3) declaration that

the 113 patent is invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., on grounds that the omission of

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 12
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

- 3 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

Soo and Cheah as inventors was done with deceptive intent; (4) declaration of

unenforceability, on grounds that Krawchuck deceived the Patent and Trademark Office by

omitting to reference Soo and Cheah’s roles as inventors; (5) infringement of the 113 patent

on grounds that RPA and Krawchuck have unlawfully offered for sale, sold, manufactured and

used the 113 patent; (6) breach of contract on grounds that RPA failed to pay Soo five percent

of the price of tables and chairs purchased by RPA and an additional ten percent of the price

of sales if Soo was the source of the sales pursuant to the parties’ agreement; (7) unjust

enrichment on grounds that Soo and/or Cheah conferred a substantial benefit on Krawchuck

by creating the Gladiator chair, and that it is unjust for Plaintiffs to retain this benefit without

conferring any benefit upon Soo or Cheah; (8) quantum meruit/ misappropriation of ideas/

breach of implied contract on grounds that Plaintiffs misappropriated the ideas of Soo and

Cheah, and profited therefrom; (9) federal unfair competition on grounds that Plaintiffs made

misrepresentations with respect to the 113 patent which violate the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.

section 1125; (10) unfair competition/ false advertising in violation of sections 17200 and

17500 of the California Business and Professions Code; and (11) interference with contract and

actual and/or prospective economic advantage on grounds that Plaintiffs/Counterclaim

Defendants are aware of their business and economic and contractual relationships with

Defendants/ Counterclaim Plaintiffs, and “have charged one or more of the Counterclaim

Plaintiffs and their customers with infringing the Mr. Krawchuck patent, knowing that such

patent is invalid, unenforceable, non-infringed, and in fact rightfully owned by Soo and/or Mr.

Cheah as the true inventor.” Id., ¶¶ 98-99. 

On October 19, 2007, an order of default was entered as to Defendants Compact Intl

Inc., BZ Global Sdn Bhd, and BZ Global HK Limited (Doc. # 99). On January 31, 2008, an

order of default was entered as to Defendants Johnson and Cheah (Doc. # 110). On January

31, 2008, the Court held that default judgment against Defendants Compact Intl Inc., BZ

Global Sdn Bhd, BZ Global HK Limited, Johnson and Cheah was not proper “at this stage of

the proceedings because there are claims proceeding against Defendant Kok Cheong Soo.”

Id. at 6. 

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 12
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

- 4 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

On July 28, 2008, Soo, the only remaining and active Defendant in this case, filed a

motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 112). The motion for summary judgment stated in full:

Defendant’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims were filed on

September 13, 2006 and subsequently on May 31, 2007 the Amended Answer,

Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims were filed. 

Defendant has been hurt by this action of Plaintiffs and respectfully moves this

Court for summary judgment on all Counterclaims against Plaintiffs.

Id. at 1-2. On November 3, 2008, the Court issued an order denying the motion for summary

judgment (Doc. # 118). The Court found that, other than the vague assertion that “Defendant

has been hurt,” the motion for summary judgment did not identify any basis in fact or in law,

undisputed or otherwise, which would justify granting summary judgment. Id. at 2. The Court

concluded that Soo has failed to satisfy his initial burden of establishing the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact as required by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On April 27, 2009, Plaintiffs filed the Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment,

pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. # 143). On July 14,

2009, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. #

149). The Court held that Soo had willfully infringed on Plaintiffs’ patent, and granted

summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Soo on that claim. Id. at 11-12. The

Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Soo on his counterclaims

for his first through fifth claims for correction of inventorship, declaration and transfer of

ownership, declaration of invalidity, declaration of unenforceability, and infringement. Id. at

12. The Court held that “Soo does not dispute that these claims rely on Soo’s assertion that

he is an inventor of [the Gladiator chair,] yet Soo has failed to submit any evidence that Soo

is” in fact the inventor. Id. The Court also granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs

and against Soo on the ninth claim for unfair competition under federal law. Id. As to that

claim, the Court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs

had misrepresented their rights under the 113 patent. Id. at 13. The Court declined to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Soo’s state law counterclaims because it had already dismissed

his federal claims. Id. On July 16, 2009 a judgment was entered on the claims that were

adjudicated by the Court’s order. (Doc. # 150). 

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 4 of 12
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

- 5 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

On July 30, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Revise the Court’s Summary Judgment

Order and to Enter a Permanent Injunction. (Doc. # 151). Pursuant to the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure, Soo’s opposition was due on August 24, 2009. On October 23, 2009, Soo filed an

Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response. (Doc. # 154). Soo stated that he

is proceeding pro se and only learned of the pending Motion to Revise the Court’s Summary

Judgment Order and to Enter a Permanent Injunction on October 17, 2009, because he did not

receive the Notice of Electronic Filing. Id. at 2. Soo sought an extension until December 14,

2009 to file his opposition. Id. at 3. The Court granted Soo’s motion and ordered Plaintiffs

to file any reply to Soo’s opposition by December 21, 2009. (Doc. # 156). Soo filed a

response and numerous exhibits on December 14, 2009. (Docs. 156-163). Plaintiffs filed a

reply on December 21, 2009.

On December 18, 2009, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion Requesting Permission to

file an Amended and Supplemental Motion. (Doc. # 164). On January 8, 2010, the Court

denied the motion pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1, which requires every

amended pleading to be “complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading.”

(Doc. # 167). The Court ordered Plaintiffs to notify the Court within twenty days whether it

wished to withdraw the pending Motion to Revise the Court’s Summary Judgment Order and

to Enter a Permanent Injunction (Doc. # 151) and file an amended motion which complies with

the Local Civil Rules. (Doc. # 167). On January 15, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a notice stating it

had decided to rely upon the pending motion and would not be filing an amended motion.

(Doc. # 168).

After reviewing Soo’s filings, the Court concluded that one of Soo’s filings, a Proposed

Motion for Relief from Summary Judgment Order (Doc. # 163) should be construed as a

Motion for Reconsideration. On January 25, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a

response on or before Tuesday, February 9, 2010 and gave Soo until February 23, 2010 to file

any reply. (Doc. # 169). Plaintiffs filed a response on February 9, 2010. (Doc. # 170). Soo

did not file a reply. 

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 5 of 12
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

- 6 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Plaintiffs contend that the Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of

Plaintiffs (Doc. # 149) does not address remedies. (Doc. # 151-1 at 2). Plaintiffs contend that

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 56(d)(2) allow the Court to issue a partial judgment

which does not address damages following a summary judgment order, and then return to the

damages issue at a later time. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs contend that the Court should revise the July

16, 2009 judgment because a judgment which adjudicates “fewer than all the claims or the

rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims

or parties and may be revised at any time” before a final judgment is entered. Id. at 3 (citing

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(b)). Plaintiffs contend that the summary judgment order was otherwise

proper, but should be revised to more specifically state that “injunctive and monetary relief

remain to be adjudicated.” Id. at 5. 

Plaintiffs contend that the Court should enter a permanent injunction pursuant to 35

U.S.C. § 283 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(d)(2) and 65(d). Id. at 5. Plaintiffs

contend that a permanent injunction is proper because Soo’s infringement was willful and has

resulted in a loss of good will, market position, and revenue. Id. at 6. Plaintiffs contend that

they will suffer further damage if Soo is not enjoined from further infringement. Plaintiffs

contend that reputational damage can constitute irreparable harm. Id. Plaintiffs contend that

monetary relief would be inadequate because Defendants are located overseas, making it

difficult to collect judgment against them. Id. Plaintiffs contend that there will be no hardship

to Defendants from the injunction, but if an injunction is not entered, there will be hardship to

Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs “will be unable to enforce [their patent] rights against the current

Defendants as well as any future infringers.” Id. Plaintiffs contend that a permanent

injunction will not harm the public, because the patented invention is available in the

marketplace. Id. Plaintiffs contend that the injunction should cover Soo, as well as all of the

defaulted Defendants— Compact International, BZ Global Sdn Bhd., BZ Global (H.K.)

Limited, Cheah, and Johnson. Id. at 8. Plaintiffs further request a scheduling order pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 to address the remaining issues of damages, enhanced

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 6 of 12
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

- 7 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

damages, and attorneys’ fees as to all Defendants. Id. Plaintiffs have attached a proposed

permanent injunction to the motion. (Doc. # 151-2, Ex. A).

In his response, Soo contends that the Court should grant him relief from the summary

judgment order because he is a pro se litigant and neglected to previously present relevant facts

to the Court. (Doc. # 157 at 1). Soo contends that there is a genuine issue of material fact

which requires this case to go to trial. Id. Soo filed extensive attachments along with his

motion (Docs. # 158-163) which he contends prove that he is the inventor of the Gladiator

chair, that Dennis Krawchuck is not an inventor of the Gladiator chair, and that RPA falsely

told Soo that he would be listed as the inventor on the patent. (Doc. # 157 at 2). Soo contends

that Krawchuck and RPA failed to make payments they promised him for his invention and

development of the chair design. Id. Soo contends that Krawchuck stole his invention and

filed fraudulent patent applications, deceiving the U.S. PTO into granting an invalid patent.

Id. at 3. Soo attached a Proposed Motion for Relief from Summary Judgment Order, which

the Court construed as a Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. # 163, Ex. A; Doc. # 169). 

Soo’s Motion for Reconsideration restates Soo’s contentions from his response brief

and includes a declaration by Soo signed under penalty of perjury. (Doc. # 163). Soo states

he is the inventor of the chair and that “[n]either RPA nor any employee of RPA, including

Dennis Krawchuck, made any inventive contributions to the” Gladiator chair design. Id. at 3.

Soo states that a confidentiality agreement he entered with RPA, attached as an exhibit, shows

that he was the inventor of the chair. Id. at 3-4. Soo states that he forwarded the drawings to

Krawchuck as email attachments on August 28, 2002, also attached as an exhibit. Id. at 4. Soo

states the email exchange which ensued establishes that he, and not Krawchuck, is the inventor

of the chair. Id. Soo states that he later changed and improved the design of the Gladiator

chair, making it stronger by reinforcing the back legs with metal. Id. at 5. Soo contends

Krawchuck was advised by his attorney that the initial stacking feature of the Gladiator chair

infringed on a patent held by Mah Sing, U.S. Patent No. 6, 592, 182, and that Soo came up

with a way to stack the Gladiator chairs without infringing on the patent. Id. 

Plaintiffs contend in their reply that the Court should not consider Soo’s filings pursuant

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 7 of 12
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

- 8 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

to Local Civil Rule 7.1 which requires motions for reconsideration to be filed within 30 days

of the ruling at issue. (Doc. # 165 at 2). Plaintiffs contend that Soo has not submitted any

evidence that establishes a genuine issue of material fact and that all of the evidence Soo has

submitted was already before the Court. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs contend that Soo’s assertions that

he is the true inventor of the Gladiator chair are insufficient as a matter of law. Id. at 3.

Plaintiffs contend that in addition to being untimely, Soo’s motion fails to show why he is

entitled to relief from the summary judgment order and fails to oppose Plaintiff’s motion for

a permanent injunction. Id. at 3.

After the Court construed Soo’s filings as a Motion for Reconsideration and ordered

Plaintiffs to respond, Plaintiffs filed a response which contends that even if the Court ignores

the tardiness of Soo’s motion, it “falls far short of the high standards required to merit

reconsideration.” (Doc. # 170). Plaintiffs contend that Soo has only submitted evidence which

was available to him when he originally filed his opposition to Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for

Summary Judgment, “the vast majority” of which “was submitted in support of Plaintiffs’

summary judgment motion” and has already been considered by this Court. Id. at 2-3.

Plaintiffs contend that Soo has failed to show that any of the evidence is newly discovered or

that there has been a change in the applicable law. Id. at 3. Furthermore, Plaintiffs contend

that Soo has failed to authenticate a number of documents he has submitted and that Soo failed

to turn over some of the documents during discovery. Id. at 3-4. Specifically, Plaintiffs

contend that Exhibits 9, 15, 17, 24, and 25 were not disclosed. Id. at 4. Finally, Plaintiffs

contend that the evidence Soo has submitted does not support Soo’s claim that he invented the

chairs. Id.

ANALYSIS

I. Motion for Reconsideration

1. Applicable Law

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229

F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); see also United Natn’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc.,

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 8 of 12
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

- 9 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted,

absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

controlling law.” Marlyn Natraceuticals , Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873,

880 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.

1999)). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence

for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona

Enters., 229 F.3d at 890.

“Inventorship is a question of law . . . .” Acromed Corp. v. Sofamor Danek Group, 253

F.3d 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In determining whether the named inventor on a patent is

the true inventor, courts must presume that the “named inventors are the true and only

inventors.” Id. at 1379. To overcome this presumption, “a party challenging patent validity

for omission of an inventor must present clear and convincing evidence that the omitted

individual actually invented the claimed invention.” Id. (citing Environ Prods. v. Furon Co.,

215 F.3d 1261, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2000).) “The case law is unequivocal that an inventor's

testimony respecting the facts surrounding a claim of derivation or priority of invention cannot,

standing alone, rise to the level of clear and convincing proof.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d

1187, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Inventorship is fundamentally about “conception” of the idea

behind the patent, not the execution of the idea. Acromed Corp., 253 F.3d 1371 at 1379.

Proving that a purported inventor contributed to the “conception” of the patent requires

corroborating evidence “of any asserted contributions to the conception” of the idea. See Fina

Oil & Chem. Co. v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Beyond conception, a

purported inventor must show that he made ‘a contribution to the claimed invention that is not

insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full

invention, and [did] more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or

the current state of the art.’” Acromed Corp., 253 F.3d 1379 (citing Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155

F.3d 1344, 1351, 47 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1657, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). 

2. Ruling of the Court

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 9 of 12
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

- 10 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

Even read in light of the Court’s duty to “construe pro se pleadings liberally,”

Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003), Soo has failed to plead

any facts which support reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling. While Soo states he

“neglected to present and designate facts and evidences to the Court showing that there is a

genuine issue for trial,” Soo does not suggest that any of the evidence he presented is newly

discovered or was otherwise unavailable to him when Plaintiffs originally moved for summary

judgment. Soo has not suggested any reason why the facts he now submits could not

“reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” See Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890.

Indeed, most of the evidence Soo submitted was before the Court when it decided Plaintiffs’

motion for summary judgment. Soo has not alleged the Court committed “clear error” nor has

he contended there has been any change in the law which affects this case.

However, even if the Court considers all of Soo’s evidence and his arguments, Soo

cannot establish that the Court’s earlier ruling was incorrect. Soo’s evidence and arguments

are insufficient to rebut the presumption that Krawchuck, the named inventor on the patent,

did not in fact invent the Gladiator chair. Soo has not presented any corroborating evidence

that he was involved in the conception of the Gladiator chair, rather his evidence tends to

establish that he was involved in putting the already-existing design into practice. Soo’s only

evidence that he was involved in the conception of the chairs is his own testimony, which is

legally insufficient to rebut the presumption that Krawchuck, the named inventor, is the true

and only inventor of the Gladiator chair.

II. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Revise the Court’s Summary Judgment Order and to Enter

a Permanent Injunction

“‘Judgment’ as used in [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] includes a decree and any

order from which an appeal lies.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(a). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(b):

When an action presents more than one claim for relief — whether as a claim,

counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim — or when multiple parties are

involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but

fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there

is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however

designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 10 of 12
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

- 11 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or

parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment

adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(b) (emphasis added). If a court makes “a clerical mistake or a mistake

arising from oversight or omission,” in a judgment, it may correct the mistake at any time. See

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(a).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs injunctions and restraining orders. Rule

65(d), the only portion of the rule which applies to permanent injunctions, sets requirements

for all orders granting injunctions. Specifically, “[e]very order granting an injunction . . . must:

(A) state the reasons why it issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in

reasonable detail — and not by referring to the complaint or other document — the act or acts

restrained or required.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(d)(1). A statute also governs the issuance of

injunctions in patent cases and states that a court “may grant injunctions in accordance with

the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms

as the court deems reasonable.” 35 U.S.C. § 283.

The judgment entered July 16, 2009 (Doc. # 150) was entered in error. Plaintiffs did

not move for judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and the court never

made a finding that there was no just reason for delay before entering a partial judgment as

required by the rule. See Docs. # 143, 149. The judgment entered July 16, 2009 is vacated.

Plaintiffs made no showing that they are entitled to an injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 65 or 35 U.S.C. § 283 at this stage of the proceedings. Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Revise the Court’s Summary Judgment Order and to Enter a Permanent Injunction is denied

without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) Defendant Kok Cheong Soo’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 163) is

DENIED.

(2) The judgment entered July 16, 2009 is VACATED.

(3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Revise the Court’s Summary Judgment Order and to Enter

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 11 of 12
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

- 12 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

a Permanent Injunction (Doc. # 151) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

IN PART. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Revise the Court’s Summary Judgment Order

is GRANTED. The Court VACATES the portion of the order at page 13, lines

25-26 which directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment. Plaintiff’s Motion

to Enter a Permanent Injunction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

(4) The parties shall file any further motions within 60 days of the date of this order.

The Court will set a pretrial conference date thereafter.

DATED: March 10, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 171 Filed 03/10/10 Page 12 of 12