Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00636/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00636-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

DIGITAL IMPACT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BIGFOOT INTERACTIVE, INC.,

Defendant. 

No. C 05-0636 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 87]

BIGFOOT INTERACTIVE, INC.,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

DIGITAL IMPACT, INC.,

Counterdefendant. 

Before the Court is an Order issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which states as

follows:

Digital Impact sued Bigfoot for patent infringement. Bigfoot filed a

counterclaim, seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity. On September 19, 2007

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered

summary judgment of noninfringement. Without expressly addressing or dismissing

Bigfoot’s counterclaim, the district court entered a “final judgment.” Subsequently,

Digital Impact filed this appeal. 

A judgment that does not dispose of pending counterclaims is not a final

judgment. Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc., 339 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because

there is no final judgment disposing of all claims for relief, Digital Impact’s appeal

must be dismissed. Id. 

Docket No. 91 at 1-2 (Order).

On February 7, 2008, the Ninth Circuit thus dismissed the appeal.

Case 4:05-cv-00636-SBA Document 95 Filed 02/14/08 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

In this Court, after Digital Impact, Inc. (“Digital”) sued Bigfoot Interactive, Inc. (“Bigfoot”),

the latter did answer and file a counterclaim seeking a declaration of either non-infringement (first

counterclaim) or alternatively, a declaration of invalidity (second counterclaim), regarding the

disputed patent. See Docket No. 13 ¶¶ 23-24 (Answer & Countercl.). On September 18, 2007, the

Court granted Bigfoot’s motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 71], finding there was no

infringement. See Docket No. 86 at 12 (Order). That same day, the Court granted judgment for

Bigfoot, finding against Digital Impact, but did not issue judgment for Bigfoot on its counterclaim. 

See Docket No. 87 (Final J.). 

As a result, the Court orders as follows:

(1) This matter is RE-OPENED as of February 14, 2008;

(2) The Final Judgment granted on September 18, 2007 and entered on September 19,

2007 [Docket No. 87] is VACATED; 

(3) The Court DECLARES, for the reasons stated in the Court’s Order [Docket No. 86]

on Bigfoot’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement [Docket No. 71], of U.S. Patent

6,449,634 (“634 patent”), entitled “Method and System for Remotely Sensing the File Formats

Processed by an E-Mail Client,” that Bigfoot does not perform all of the steps of the 634 patent, and

it does not have sufficient connection with its e-mail recipients to be regarded as “jointly

performing” the steps of the patent. Accordingly, Bigfoot did not infringe on independent claims 21

and 30 of the 634 patent, and by extension all claims dependent on 21 and 30;

(4) The Court DISMISSES Bigfoot’s second counterclaim as moot;

(5) The Court shall issue a First Amended Final Judgment reiterating the initial Final

Judgment, but also granting judgment for Bigfoot on its first counterclaim for a declaration of noninfringement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 14, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00636-SBA Document 95 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2