Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01122/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01122-11/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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

 

2 The parties respective claims and counterclaims were narrowed by the Case

Management Conference Order and UTStarcom’s Infringement Contentions. In the Case

Management Order, the court expressly adopted the parties’ statement of disputed factual and

legal issues set forth in their Joint Case Management Conference Statement. The parties’

statement of disputed factual and legal issues omitted any reference to any claims of the ‘671

Patent other than the “asserted” claims. UTStarcom’s Infringement Contentions clarify that only

Claims 1 and 2 were asserted in this action.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UTSTARCOM, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STARENT NETWORKS CORP.,

Defendant.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C04-1122 PVT

ORDER DISMISSING COUNTERCLAIM TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS

A DECLARATION THAT THE

ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID

AND/OR UNENFORCEABLE

On December 6, 2005, the court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of

non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,671 (“the ‘671 Patent”).1 However, before the court

may enter judgment in this case, it must first dispose of Defendant’s counterclaim for declaratory

relief based on its contention that the asserted claims are invalid and/or unenforceable. See

Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (a “judgment

that does not dispose of pending counterclaims is not a final judgment”). Based on the file

herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, to the extent Defendant’s counterclaims seek a

declaration that Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘671 Patent2 are invalid and/or unenforceable, the

Case 5:04-cv-01122-PVT Document 282 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

counterclaim is MOOT, and is thus DISMISSED without prejudice.

Although the Supreme Court has expressed a preference that trial courts address any

questions regarding the validity of patent along with the issue of non-infringement (see Sinclair

& Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 330 (1945)), the Court has also held that

once a trial court rules there has been no infringement it may not adjudicate the validity issue (see

Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 335 n.7 (1980), citing Electrical

Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241 (1939)). The Federal Circuit has also

repeatedly held that a trial court may dismiss invalidity claims as moot once it finds there is no

infringement. See, e.g., Phonometrics, Inc. v. Northern Telecom, Inc., 133 F.3d 1459, 1468

(Fed.Cir. 1998) (district court has discretion to dismiss invalidity counterclaim as moot where it

finds no infringement).

Dated: 12/12/05

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-01122-PVT Document 282 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 2