Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-00144/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-00144-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION–No. C-02-00144 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 2/22/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CYGNUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

WORLDPORT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE, INC.,

TELENATIONAL CORP., MILTEL, and

WORLDPORT/ICX, INC.,

Defendants.

AND

CYGNUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIAL-THRU INTERNATIONAL,

Defendant.

No. C-02-00144 RMW

[Re Docket No. 31]

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION

No. C-02-00142 RMW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION

On November 27, 2007, plaintiff Cygnus Telecommunications Technology, LLC ("Cygnus")

filed a motion seeking a permanent injunction against Telenational Corp. ("Telenational") and Rapid

Link, Inc., formerly known as Dial-Thru International, Inc. Cygnus also asks the court to change the

Case 5:02-cv-00144-RMW Document 43 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 Cygnus also argues that this court's March 29, 2007 Order in Case No. 02-00142 which held

Cygnus's patents in suit to be invalid under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is in error. Cygnus

has now appealed the judgment in Case No. 02-00142 to the Federal Circuit. Thus, Cygnus's

arguments directed toward the merits of the court's decision are not relevant to the instant motion.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION–No. C-02-00144 RMW

MAG 2

caption in Case No. 02-00144 as follows: "Cygnus Telecommunications Technology, LLC v.

InterContinental Exchange, Inc.; and its successors, Chris Canfield; Telenational Communications,

Inc.; and Rapid Link, Inc." This caption change entails deleting WorldPort Communications, Inc.,

WorldPort/ICX and Militel and adding the following, claiming that they are successors to ICX: 

Chris Canfield, a founder of ICX; Telenational; and Rapid Link, a defendant from Case No. 02-

00142. The court denies this request.

The factual background for this motion is set forth in the court's recent Order Denying

Plaintiff's Motion for Payment of Royalties dated February 22, 2008 ("Royalty Order"), which ruled

on Cygnus's motion asking the court to award royalties for use of Cygnus's patents from

Telenational on behalf of Rapid Link. Plaintiff's theory here is similar to the theory advanced in

support of the prior motion: (1) that Telenational and Canfield, who prior to October 31, 2001

owned ICX, are subject to a consent judgment entered against ICX on July 8, 2002 in Case No. 02-

00144 ("Consent Judgment"); and (2) that by virtue of having acquired Telenational in May 2006,

Rapid Link is also subject to that Consent Judgment.1

Defendant in Case No. 02-00142, Rapid Link, joined by Canfield and Telenational, opposes

this motion on the grounds that none of them was a party to the July 8, 2002 Consent Judgment. As

the court determined in its Royalty Order, Rapid Link, Canfield and Telenational did not sign the

Consent Judgment, are not referenced by the Consent Judgment, and Cygnus has not established that

Rapid Link, Canfield or Telenational are in privity with or successors in interest that are subject to

the Consent Judgment. Based on the evidence before the court (the same evidence presented for the

court's consideration of the Royalty Order), at the time of the Consent Judgment, WorldPort did not

own Telenational and Canfield no longer had an interest in the WorldPort entities. The court

declines to reconsider its decision on the basis of Cygnus's present motion. Accordingly, the court

denies Cygnus's motion to alter the caption of this case. Nothing in this order precludes Cygnus

from filing an action or making a motion to allow it to allege and prove that the unnamed defendants

Case 5:02-cv-00144-RMW Document 43 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION–No. C-02-00144 RMW

MAG 3

are alter-egos or were in privity with one of the parties to the Consent Judgment at the time it was

entered. The court has concluded at this time that Cygnus has not so proven.

As to Cygnus's motion for a permanent injunction, the court finds that it does not have

personal jurisdiction over Canfield. He was never a party to any case filed by Cygnus and has never

been served. To the extent the court would be required to reach the merits of any injunction, it finds

that Cygnus cannot show that it has or will suffer any irreparable injury. The court has ruled (1) that

the patents-in-suit are invalid and (2) nothing binds Rapid Link, Canfield and Telenational to any

agreement not to contest the validity of those patents. The court's invalidity ruling is on appeal to

the Federal Circuit. While Cygnus may seek to renew its motion should the appellate court reverse

this court's ruling, the court now finds that in light of its invalidity ruling, Cygnus cannot meet the

first requirement of an irreparable injury for purposes of satisfying the four-factor test for a

permanent injunction. See eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 1839 (2006) ("A

plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available

at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering

the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and

(4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction").

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Cygnus's motion for permanent injunction is denied without

prejudice. 

DATED: 2/22/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-00144-RMW Document 43 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION–No. C-02-00144 RMW

MAG 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

John P. Sutton johnpsutton@earthlink.net 

Counsel for Defendants:

Robert L. Esensten resensten@wcclaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 2/22/08 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:02-cv-00144-RMW Document 43 Filed 02/22/08 Page 4 of 4