Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03012/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03012-12/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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ZINUS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIMMONS BEDDING COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 07-3012 PVT

ORDER DENYING PARTIES’ JOINT

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER

GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

On April 21, 2008, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Vacate Order Granting Plaintiff's

Motion for Summary Adjudication. Based on the motion submitted, and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ motion to vacate is DENIED. The parties’

argument in support of their motion amounts to no more than the conclusory assertion that there are

“no considerations here that would justify denial of this motion.” The court disagrees. Although the

parties are requesting that the court vacate an interlocutory order rather than a judgment, all of the

policy considerations applicable to a court’s vacatur of a judgment are pertinent, and in the present

case justify denial of the motion.

In U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (“Bancorp”)

the Supreme Court held that, where the party requesting vacatur of a judgment under appellate

Case 5:07-cv-03012-PVT Document 101 Filed 04/23/08 Page 1 of 4
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

With regard to claim construction portion of the order at issue, any claim of prejudicial 1

hardship is somewhat speculative because it is not clear what preclusive effect a partial claim

construction order has. Compare TM Patents, L.P. v. International Business Machines Corp., 72

F.Supp.2d 370, 376-377, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (giving preclusive effect to a claim construction order)

with Kollmorgen Corp. v. Yakawa Elec. Corp., 147 F.Supp.2d 464, 468, 470 (W.D.Va. 2001) (ruling

that claim construction orders should not be given preclusive effect before they are subjected to Federal

Circuit review).

ORDER, page 2

review causes mootness by its own voluntary litigation-related action such as settlement, the

appellate court may not grant the motion absent exceptional circumstances. Id. at 29. In contrast, in

United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950), the Supreme Court explained that it is

inequitable to bind parties to unappealable adjudications where they lost their right to appeal by

“happenstance.” Id. at 39-40. Although the Ninth Circuit has held that an equitable balancing test,

rather than the “exceptional circumstances” test of Bancorp, applies to motion for vacatur at the

district court level (see American Games, Inc. v. Trade Products, Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1167-70 (9th

Cir. 1998)), the distinction between mootness caused by happenstance versus voluntary action

remains a pivotal threshold question in the district court’s consideration of the motion.

In the present case, mootness was caused not by “happenstance,” but by the parties’ voluntary

decision to settle the entire case. Thus, Munsignwear is inapplicable and, at a minimum, the court

must balance the equitable factors of the hardship imposed on Defendants if this motion is denied

against public policy concerns such as the interest in the finality of judgment. See American Games,

142 F.3d at 1167-70.

The hardship on Defendants if this motion is denied is the possibility that the order at issue

may have collateral estoppel effect in later infringement actions Defendants may wish to pursue. 

The court gives this factor little weight due to the vast differences between the accused methods and

the invention claimed in the patent-in-suit as described in its specifications. The claimed invention

is described as a method for retaining strings of pocketed springs, or “bolsters,” in a compressed

state during shipment to a location where the bolsters are then assembled into a mattress. There is no

mention in the specification of packaging an entire rolled-up compressed mattress in a box so that it

is easily carried home by the end user. The preclusive effect, if any, of this court’s summary 1

adjudication order is unlikely to hamper Defendants’ ability to assert the patent-in-suit against any

alleged infringer who is using the claimed method to retain bolsters in a compressed state during

Case 5:07-cv-03012-PVT Document 101 Filed 04/23/08 Page 2 of 4
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 3

shipment to a location where the bolsters are then assembled into a mattress.

Nor does the court give much weight to the fact that the parties’ agreement to jointly file this

motion was an important factor in their settlement. While the potential availability of vacatur may

have encouraged the parties in this particular case to settle at this time, it may well discourage other

litigants from settling their disputes before a court issues dispositive rulings such as claim

construction or summary adjudication of non-infringement. See Bancorp, 513 U.S. at 28 (noting that

parties may wish to roll the dice rather than settle “if, but only if, an unfavorable outcome can be

washed away by a settlement-related vacatur”).

On the other side of the scale, allowing a patent holder to litigate issues of claim construction

and infringement, only to settle and obtain vacatur of any unfavorable rulings, would raise weighty

policy concerns. See, e.g., Allen-Bradley Co., LLC v. Kollmorgen Corp., 199 F.R.D. 316, 319

(E.D.Wisc. 2001) (“[t]he result sought by the parties ... would ... encourag[e] litigants to test their

proposed claim constructions via a full-blown Markman hearing and decision before settling, thereby

relegating the court’s Markman decision to the category of ‘advisory opinion.’”); see also, Visto

Corp. v. Sproqit Technologies, Inc., 2006 WL 3741946 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (denying motion to vacate

all interlocutory orders, including a partial claim construction order, based on the patent holder’s

voluntary decision to extend to the alleged infringer a covenant not to sue); and Bancorp, 513

U.S. 18.

The court is also mindful that “‘[j]udicial 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 a vacatur.’” See Bancorp,

513 U.S. at 26; see also Ericsson, Inc. v. Interdigital Communications Corp., 2004 WL 1636924

(N.D. Tex. June 3, 2004) rev’d on other grounds, 418 F.3d 1217 (Fed.Cir.2005) (extending

reasoning of Bancorp to motions for vacatur directed to a district court).

In the present case, the court entertained several rounds of briefing, spent a substantial

amount of time studying the asserted claims, the accused method and the Magni prior art, heard an

hour of oral argument, and spent several days drafting the opinion. The public paid for this use of

court resources through its tax dollars. Vacatur would render that expenditure a waste, and the

Case 5:07-cv-03012-PVT Document 101 Filed 04/23/08 Page 3 of 4
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 4

parties cite no public interest that would be served by vacatur which would justify the waste of

public funds. Under all the circumstances of this case, the court finds that the balance of equities

weigh strongly against vacatur, and thus denial of the parties’ motion is warranted. 

Dated: 4/23/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03012-PVT Document 101 Filed 04/23/08 Page 4 of 4