Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03236/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03236-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MMJK, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ULTIMATE BLACKJACK TOUR LLC,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-3236 BZ

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND COUNTERCLAIM

Having read plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, defendant’s

Opposition and plaintiff’s Reply, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as

follows:

1. There is no need for oral argument and the hearing

scheduled for December 5, 2007 is VACATED.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the complaint with

prejudice is GRANTED. 

3. The motion to dismiss the counterclaim seeking a

declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity and

unforceability, is GRANTED, in view of plaintiff’s

unconditional covenant not to sue defendant in the future on

Case 3:07-cv-03236-BZ Document 49 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 3
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

any claim for infringement of the ‘154 Patent. This covenant

not to sue has rendered moot the counterclaim since the patent

will never be enforced against defendant. Benitec Australia,

Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc., 495 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir. 2007);

Crossbow Technology, Inc. v. YH Technology, 2007 WL 2408879

(N.D. Cal.). 

4. To the extent that defendant’s opposition is premised

on an expectation that it will be awarded attorney’s fees, it

is misguided. While it is the prevailing party for purposes

of an award of legally recoverable costs under Rule 54(d)(1),

Highway Equipment Co. v. FECO, Ltd., 469 F.3d 1027, 1035 (Fed.

Cir. 2006), in patent disputes fees are only awarded in

exceptional cases at the court’s discretion. 35 U.S.C. § 285. 

Having presided over the preliminary injunction hearing, and

understanding the issues, I conclude that this is not an

exceptional case that would warrant the imposition of fees on

the plaintiff. To the extent defendant has requested a fee

award in its Opposition, the request is DENIED.

5. To the extent that the defendant is concerned about

patents plaintiff may obtain in the future, or that plaintiff

will somehow harm its reputation in the future, such concerns

presently are not sufficiently concrete to present an actual

controversy that warrants a declaratory judgment proceeding. 

Benitec, supra, at 1345-47. Plaintiff’s release is much

broader than the release at issue in WS Packaging, 

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-03236-BZ Document 49 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Inc. v. Global Commerce Group, LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis

34880 (E.D. Wisc.). 

Dated: November 7, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\MMJK V.ULTIMATE BLACKJACK\ORDER DISM.COMPLAINT.COUNTERCLAIMS.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-03236-BZ Document 49 Filed 11/07/07 Page 3 of 3