Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20709/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20709-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 01-20709 JF

ORDER GRANTING LUCENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE DOLBY’S AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLAIMS OF INVALIDITY

(JFLC1)

** E-filed on 9/6/05 **

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DOLBY LABORATORIES, INC., et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

 Defendant.

_________________________________________

Case Number C 01-20709 JF

ORDER1 GRANTING LUCENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DOLBY’S

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

CLAIMS OF INVALIDITY

[Docket No. 684]

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

On January 28, 2005, the parties filed seven motions for summary judgment related to the

two patents at issue in this case: United States Patent No. 5,341,457 (“the ’457 patent”) and

United States Patent No. 5,627,938 (“the ’938 patent”). See Docket Nos. 496, 503, 511, 512, 520,

523, 529. Specifically, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Dolby Laboratories, Inc., and Dolby

Laboratories Licensing Corporation (collectively “Dolby”) moved for summary judgment of 

(1) non-infringement of the ’457 patent, (2) non-infringement of the ’938 patent, (3) noninfringement of the ’457 and ’938 patents regarding Dolby’s cinema technology, (4) no

inducement of infringement and no contributory infringement of the ’457 and ’938 patents, 

Case 5:01-cv-20709-JF Document 692 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 6
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

 Dolby appears to have withdrawn its motion for summary judgment of non-infringement

of the ’457 and ’938 patents regarding Dolby’s cinema technology, consistent with its previous

representation to the Court that the parties had been discussing dismissal of the underlying

infringement allegations, as this motion no longer appears as a pending motion on the Court’s

docket.

3

 In the alternative, Lucent moves the Court to certify for immediate appeal its April 2005

Orders granting Dolby’s motions for summary judgment of non-infringement.

4

 At a case management conference on July 22, 2005, the parties discussed some of the

issues raised by the instant motion and request. The Court set a briefing schedule and took the

matter under submission without further oral argument.

2

Case No. C 01-20709 JF

ORDER GRANTING LUCENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE DOLBY’S AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLAIMS OF INVALIDITY

(JFLC1)

(5) laches and estoppel, as asserted in its affirmative defenses, and (6) invalidity of the ’457 and

’938 patents. Defendant/Counterclaimant Lucent Technologies Inc. and Counterclaimant Lucent

Technologies Guardian I LLC (collectively “Lucent”) moved for summary judgment as to a

number of Dolby’s affirmative defenses. On the same day, Dolby also filed a motion in limine to

preclude Lucent from offering any expert report or testimony. See Docket No. 497. On April 22,

2005, the Court granted Dolby’s motions for summary judgment of non-infringement, of no

inducement of infringement, and of no contributory infringement of the ’457 and ’938 patents.2

See Docket Nos. 680-81. 

Lucent now moves to dismiss Dolby’s affirmative defenses and Dolby’s claims for

declaratory judgment that the ’457 and ’938 patents are invalid, which would render the pending

summary judgment motions moot.3 Should the Court grant Lucent’s motion, Dolby requests a

ruling on its motion to preclude Lucent from offering any expert report or testimony so that the

ruling may be reviewed on appeal simultaneously with the Federal Circuit’s review of the

judgment of non-infringement.4 Both Lucent’s motion to dismiss and Dolby’s request for a ruling

on its motion in limine are opposed.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss Dolby’s Affirmative Defenses

Dolby’s affirmative defenses were raised solely as defenses to Lucent’s counterclaims of

infringement of the ’457 and ’938 patents. Because the Court has ruled in favor of Dolby on

Case 5:01-cv-20709-JF Document 692 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 6
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

Case No. C 01-20709 JF

ORDER GRANTING LUCENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE DOLBY’S AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLAIMS OF INVALIDITY

(JFLC1)

these counterclaims, Lucent argues that Dolby’s affirmative defenses are moot and should be

dismissed. Dolby agrees that “its affirmative defenses relating to infringement issues . . . should

be dismissed without prejudice pending resolution in the Federal Circuit.” Opp’n at 8. However,

it then asserts that dismissal is not appropriate with respect to its “affirmative defenses relating to

the still pending reissue application for the ‘938 patent . . . (Affirmative Defense Nos. 7-9),” id.,

despite the fact that these affirmative defenses also are defenses to Lucent’s counterclaims of

infringement. Although Dolby correctly observes that, until the ’938 patent is reissued, there is

no absolute certainty that the claims—and thus the infringement analysis—will remain the same,

Lucent has represented that the reissue application contains no new claims, and it points out that,

in any event, there are no live claims of infringement in this case. The Court concludes that, in

light of its ruling of non-infringement, Dolby’s affirmative defenses are moot and should be

dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g., Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications

Group, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 483, 498-99 (E.D. Va. 2000).

B. Motion to Dismiss Dolby’s Invalidity Claims

Lucent also argues that the Court need not decide Dolby’s claims that the ’457 and ’938

patents are invalid and that the Court may exercise its discretion to dismiss those claims in light

of its ruling that Dolby has not infringed the ’457 and ’938 patents. The Federal Circuit has held

that a district court has discretion “to dismiss a counterclaim alleging that a patent is invalid as

moot where it finds no infringement.” Phonometrics, Inc. v. N. Telecom Inc., 133 F.3d 1459,

1468 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Nystrom v. TREX Co., 339 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

(stating that district court could have dismissed counterclaim alleging invalidity—either with or

without a finding that the counterclaim was moot—following grant of summary judgment of

non-infringement). Although both Phonometrics and Nystrom involved the dismissal of

counterclaims alleging invalidity following a finding of non-infringement, the Court finds no

reason that the reasoning should not apply to the scenario presented by the instant case, in which

Case 5:01-cv-20709-JF Document 692 Filed 09/06/05 Page 3 of 6
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

 Dolby has acknowledged that dismissal of its claims of invalidity is within the Court’s

discretion.

6

 Considerations of judicial economy are particularly important in light of the fact that

trial on Dolby’s invalidity claims could not proceed until 2006 because of its counsel’s trial

schedule and because appellate review of the Court’s claim construction obviously will impact

any invalidity determination.

4

Case No. C 01-20709 JF

ORDER GRANTING LUCENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE DOLBY’S AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLAIMS OF INVALIDITY

(JFLC1)

Dolby brought affirmative claims of invalidity as the plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action.5

Even though the parties already have briefed fully Dolby’s motion for summary judgment that

the ’457 and ’938 patents are invalid and have filed motions in limine should the invalidity

claims go to trial, the Court, having considered both parties’ arguments on this issue, determines

that it is appropriate and in the interest of judicial economy to dismiss Dolby’s invalidity claims

without prejudice at this time.6 The cases cited by Dolby do not persuade the Court otherwise,

and Dolby will not be prejudiced by the dismissal.

C. Motion in Limine to Preclude Lucent from Offering Expert Report or Testimony

Dolby’s motion to preclude Lucent from offering any expert report or testimony was filed

as a motion in limine in connection with a scheduled jury trial. Because the Court intends to

grant Lucent’s motion to dismiss both Dolby’s affirmative defenses and Dolby’s claims for

declaratory judgment that the ’457 and ’938 patents are invalid, there will be no trial unless the

Court’s determination with respect to Dolby’s infringement claims is reversed by the Federal

Circuit. Accordingly, Dolby’s motion in limine is not ripe for decision. However, to the extent

that it is relevant to Lucent’s anticipated appeal of the judgment of non-infringement, the Court

confirms, consistent with its comments at the hearing on March 29, 2005, that, were a trial to be

held (and were Dolby’s motion thus ripe for decision), it would be inclined to grant the motion

for the reasons stated on the record at that hearing.

II. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lucent’s motion to

dismiss without prejudice Dolby’s affirmative defenses and Dolby’s claims for declaratory 

//

Case 5:01-cv-20709-JF Document 692 Filed 09/06/05 Page 4 of 6
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

Case No. C 01-20709 JF

ORDER GRANTING LUCENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE DOLBY’S AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLAIMS OF INVALIDITY

(JFLC1)

judgment that the ’457 and ’938 patents are invalid is GRANTED. All pending motions are

TERMINATED. See Docket Nos. 497, 503, 520, 523, 634-42, 644-47, 649-54.

DATED: September 6, 2005

/s/ (electronic signature authorized)

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:01-cv-20709-JF Document 692 Filed 09/06/05 Page 5 of 6
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

Case No. C 01-20709 JF

ORDER GRANTING LUCENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE DOLBY’S AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLAIMS OF INVALIDITY

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

G. Seth Beal seth_beal@la.kirkland.com, maguillon@kirkland.com

John L. Cooper jcooper@fbm.com, brestivo@fbm.com, calendar@fbm.com

Jeffrey M. Fisher jfisher@fbm.com, renterig@fbm.com, calendar@fbm.com

Darrell A. Fruth dfruth@fbm.com, calendar@fbm.com, cschnurmacher@fbm.com

Nan E. Joesten joestenn@fbm.com, calendar@fbm.com, ksmall@fbm.com

Alan S. Kellman akellman@kirkland.com, jmafale@kirkland.com

Andrew Leibnitz aleibnitz@fbm.com, dwilliams@fbm.com

David Shukan dshukan@kirkland.com

Sangeetha M. Raghunathan sraghunathan@fbm.com 

Jenny N. Lee

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

153 East 53rd Street

New York, NY 10012

Denis J. Sullivan

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

153 East 53rd Street

New York, NY 10012

Case 5:01-cv-20709-JF Document 692 Filed 09/06/05 Page 6 of 6