Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02795/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02795-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERIFONE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VERVE, LLC., OMRON CORPORATION,

OMRON MANAGEMENT CENTER OF

AMERICA, INC., OMRON ADVANCED

SYSTEMS, INC., OMRON LOGISTICS OF

AMERICA, INC., OMRON ELECTRONICS,

INC., OMRON IDM CONTROLS, INC.,

OMRON MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA,

INC., OMRON SYSTEMS LLC, OMRON

TRANSACTION SYSTEMS, INC., and

OMRON ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS LLC,

Defendants. /

AND CONSOLIDATED CASES.

 /

No. C 04-02795 WHA

Consolidated with

No. C 04-04025 WHA and

No. C 05-00465 WHA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO DISMISS CLAIMS AS TO

UNITED STATES PATENT

NO. 4,562,340

In this consolidated patent case, plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of patent

invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement of United States Patent Nos. 4,562,340,

4,562,341 and 4,678,895. Because there were no counterclaims of infringement with respect to

the ’340 patent, plaintiff now seeks to dismiss those claims. This motion is GRANTED. 

The above-captioned action is the master file for three consolidated cases, (two of which

were severed and transferred from other districts), involving the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff

Verifone, Inc. filed its master consolidated complaint for declaratory judgment on February 23,

2005. In its answer filed on March 10, 2005, defendant Verve, LLC did not include a

Case 3:04-cv-02795-WHA Document 73 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

counterclaim of infringement of the ’340 patent. Moreover, defendant Verve’s preliminary

infringement contentions disclosed its intention to assert only the other two patents-in-suit

(Dukelow Exh. C). Plaintiff now seeks to dismiss its patent invalidity, unenforceability and

non-infringement claims with respect to the ’340 patent. This motion is unopposed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), declaratory-judgment jurisdiction depends upon the

existence of a case or controversy between the parties. This means that “an actual controversy

must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Preiser v.

Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975). Here, there exists no actual case or controversy with

respect to the ’340 patent because defendant Verve failed to assert a counterclaim of

infringement. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 801 (Fed. Cir.

1999)(“[A]n infringement counterclaim is compulsory in an action for declaration of

non-infringement.”). Thus, the Court lacks declaratory-judgment jurisdiction to decide the

claims pertaining to this patent.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The claims of the master

consolidated complaint regarding the ’340 patent are DISMISSED. The hearing on this motion,

currently scheduled for MAY 26, 2005 AT 8:00 A.M., is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2005 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02795-WHA Document 73 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 2