Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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 02CV2060-B (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant,

v.

GATEWAY, INC. and GATEWAY

COUNTRY STORES LLC, GATEWAY

COMPANIES, INC., GATEWAY

MANUFACTURING LLC and

COWABUNGA ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Defendants and Counter-claimants,

and

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Intervenor and Counter-claimant,

_____________________________________

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant,

v.

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Defendant and Counter-claimant

_____________________________________

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Civil No: 02CV2060-B(CAB)

consolidated with

Civil No: 03CV0699-B (CAB) and

Civil No: 03CV1108-B (CAB)

AMENDED PARTIAL JUDGMENT

FOLLOWING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OF U.S. PATENT NO. 4,582,956 ONLY,

UNDER FRCP 54(b).

THESE CONSOLIDATED CASES ARE

NOT TERMINATED BY THIS PARTIAL

JUDGMENT.

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 2024 Filed 09/04/07 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

2

Plaintiff Lucent Technologies, Inc. (“Lucent”) was represented by counsel Robert A.

Appleby, and James Marina. Defendant Dell, Inc., (“Dell”) was represented by counsel Joel

Freed and Joseph Micallef. Defendant Gateway, Inc. and Gateway Country Stores LLC,

Gateway Companies, Inc., Gateway Manufacturing LLC and Cowabunga Enterprises, Inc.

(“Gateway”) was represented by W. Bryan Farney, Jeffrey B. Plies, Andrew N. Thomases,

and Joshua Walsh-Benson.

This matter came before the Court on May 11, 2007 for summary judgment. After a

consideration of the parties’ extensive briefing on the matter as well as a consideration of

the parties’ arguments presented at the oral hearing, the Court granted summary judgment

of no literal infringement, no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, no inducing

infringement and no contributory infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,582,956 (“the ‘956

patent”) as set forth in the Court’s Order May 15, 2007. In light of these rulings, the Court

declared the parties’ pending motions on the affirmative defense of implied license moot.

Now therefore, this Court enters judgement as to the ‘956 patent as follows: (1) no

literal infringement; (2) no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; (3) no inducing

infringement; and (4) no contributory infringement.

The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction

for the entry of judgment, the Court therefore enters final judgment on these issues under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Any causes of action remaining with respect to the ‘956 patent shall

remain pending off-calendar to abide the results of the appeal. This judgment shall not

terminate the action as to any other patents in this consolidated case.

IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.

DATED: September 4, 2007

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Court Judge

cc: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

 United States Magistrate Judge

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 2024 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 2