Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-05967/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-05967-8/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERFECT SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GYRUS MEDICAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-5967-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PARTIAL 

FINAL JUDGMENT

Before the court is the motion of defendants Gyrus Medical, Inc., Gyrus ACMI, 

L.P., and Olympus America, Inc., for entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54(b) as to the invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,030,384 (“the ‘384 patent”). 

Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the 

relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motion.

Under Rule 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). A district court has discretion when deciding 

whether to enter judgment under Rule 54(b). See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 

446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980).

Here, plaintiff Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc., filed a complaint on November 21, 

2012, alleging infringement as to the ‘384 patent, and as to a second patent, U.S. Patent 

No. 6, 682,527 (“the ‘527 patent”). On January 9, 2013, defendants filed an answer and 

Case 4:12-cv-05967-PJH Document 136 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity as to the 

‘384 patent and the ‘527 patent. On December 16, 2013, the court issued an order 

denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions and its motion 

for leave to file a second amended complaint. In the same order, the court granted 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the invalidity of the ‘384 patent, although 

the court limited that ruling to the instant case. On December 23, 2013, the court stayed 

the case, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, pending inter partes review of the ‘527 

patent.

The court finds that the order granting summary judgment as to the invalidity of the 

‘384 patent constituted “a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief” which is “final” in 

the sense that it is “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of 

a multiple claims action.” See Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 7. Further, the court finds no 

just reason for delay, as the claims under review are “separable from the others 

remaining to be adjudicated” and the nature of the claims already determined “is such 

that no appellate court [will] have to decide the same issues more than once even if there 

[are] subsequent appeals.” Id. at 8, 10. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2017

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:12-cv-05967-PJH Document 136 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 2