Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04941/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04941-27/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pacific Award Metals, Inc.
Counter-claimant
United States Gypsum Company
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 PACIFIC AWARD METALS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-04941 JSW

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

MOTION TO VACATE CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION ORDER AND

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT AND TO

ENTER DISMISSAL ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the parties’ joint motion to

vacate this Court’s Claim Construction Order dated November 8, 2005 and the Order Granting

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated March 1, 2006. 

ANALYSIS

On June 30, 2006, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement in this matter. Pursuant

to the terms of that agreement, the parties ask the Court to vacate its rulings on claim

construction and summary judgment and to dismiss the matter with prejudice. A district court

may vacate an order granting judgment upon consideration of “‘the consequences and attendant

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

and right to re-litigation of unreviewed disputes.’” American Games, Inc. v. Trade Products,

Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1370-71 (9th Cir.

1995) (quoting Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters, 686 F.2d 720,

722 (9th Cir. 1982))). 

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 227 Filed 07/03/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

2

In this case, however, the claims construction order and order granting summary

judgment were interlocutory in nature and did not fully adjudicate the rights and claims of the

parties. Thus, they can be vacated at any time prior to final judgment. See, e.g., Persistence

Software, Inc. v. The Object People, Inc., 200 FRAT 626, 627 (N.D. Cal. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b). In support of their motion, the parties contend that the agreement to file the instant

motion was a significant factor in successfully resolving this litigation. The Court concludes

that there are no considerations that would justify denial of the motion. Accordingly, the

parties’ joint motion to vacate is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court’s Claim Construction Order dated November 8,

2005 (Docket No. 78) and the Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment of Non-Infringement dated March 1, 2006 (Docket No. 160) are VACATED. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant and Defendant’s

counterclaims against Plaintiff are HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is

directed to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 227 Filed 07/03/06 Page 2 of 2