Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02515/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02515-2/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PROTEGRITY USA, INC., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NETSKOPE, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-02515-YGR 

ORDER DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

VACATE OCTOBER 29, 2015 JUDGMENT 

INVALIDATING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,305,707 

Re: Dkt. No. 71 

Plaintiffs filed this action against defendant, accusing defendant of infringing U.S. Patent 

Number 7,305,707 (the “707 Patent”). The 707 Patent is entitled “Method for Intrusion Detection 

in a Database System.” On July 27, 2015, defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, 

asking the Court to dismiss the case with prejudice on the grounds that the asserted claims for the 

707 Patent were invalid. (Dkt. No. 43.) On October 19, 2015, the Court granted defendant’s 

motion, finding that the asserted claims for the 707 Patent were unpatentable abstract ideas. (Dkt. 

No. 60.) On October 26, 2015, the Court entered judgment in favor of defendant, invalidating the 

707 Patent. (Dkt. No. 65.) Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on November 

27, 2015. (Dkt. No. 68.) The parties subsequently settled, and on July 28, 2016, the Federal 

Circuit remanded the action back to this Court. (Dkt. No. 70.) 

Now before the Court is plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Vacate the October 29, 2015 

Judgment Invalidating U.S. Patent No. 7,305,707. (Dkt. No. 71.) Having carefully considered the 

papers submitted, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to vacate the Court’s judgment. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court “may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for a number of reasons. In deciding 

Case 4:15-cv-02515-YGR Document 72 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

whether to vacate a judgment, district courts must consider “‘the consequences and attendant 

hardships of dismissal or refusal to dismiss’ and ‘the competing values of finality of judgment and 

right to relitigation of unreviewed disputes.’” Am. Games, Inc. v. Trade Prods., Inc., 142 F.3d 

1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1370–71 (9th Cir. 1995)). The 

Ninth Circuit has held that, although “mootness by happenstance provides sufficient reason to 

vacate” because it prevents appellate review, the “equitable principles weighing in favor of vacatur 

. . . cut the other direction where the appellant by his own act prevents appellate review of the 

adverse judgment.” Dilley, 64 F.3d at 1370 (citation omitted). In the context of settlements, the 

Ninth Circuit has held that a district court is “not required to vacate a judgment when the appellant 

causes the dismissal of its appeal by settling.” Bates v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 944 F.2d 647, 650 

(9th Cir. 1991). Otherwise, “any litigant dissatisfied with a trial court’s findings would be able to 

have them wiped from the books.” Id. (quoting Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. W. Conf. of 

Teamsters, 686 F.2d 720, 721 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs argue that vacatur would be appropriate here because, otherwise, plaintiffs would 

be precluded by an unreviewed invalidity judgment from enforcing the 707 Patent against others. 

Additionally, plaintiffs argue that the vacatur of the Court’s judgment was an important factor in 

plaintiffs’ settlement with defendant, and the beneficial effect of such settlement outweighs any 

public policy concerns. 

Plaintiffs’ arguments do not persuade. The Court finds that here, the balance of the 

equities weighs against vacating its judgment invalidating the 707 Patent. By their own 

admission, plaintiffs seek vacatur so that they may assert the 707 Patent again against others, 

which would result in unnecessary relitigation of issues already determined by this Court. 

“Judicial precedents are presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole. 

They are not merely the property of private litigants and should stand unless a court concludes that 

the public interest would be served by vacatur.” U.S. Bancorp Mortg. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 

U.S. 18, 26–27 (1994) (citations omitted). That the judgment is unreviewed does not weigh in 

favor of vacatur here, where plaintiffs’ voluntary actions caused the mootness that prevented 

Case 4:15-cv-02515-YGR Document 72 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

appellate review. Id. at 25, 29 (holding that mootness by reason of settlement does not justify 

vacatur, in part, because the “losing party has voluntarily forfeited his legal remedy by the 

ordinary processes of appeal or certiorari”); see also Cardpool Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc., No. 12-

CV-04182, 2014 WL 2447185, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2014) (finding that vacatur is not 

appropriate where petitioner’s voluntary actions caused the mootness). 

Furthermore, plaintiffs’ assertion that the beneficial effect of their settlement outweighs 

any other factors is belied by their admission that the settlement is not contingent on the Court 

granting its motion for vacatur. (Dkt. No. 71-2 at 3); see Reynolds v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 10-CV4893, 2012 WL 4753499, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2012) (denying vacatur where granting of 

vacatur was not necessary to consummation of settlement). 

Accordingly, because the equities weigh against vacating the Court’s previous judgment 

invalidating the 707 Patent, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ Motion. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 71. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 13, 2016 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-02515-YGR Document 72 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 3