Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trimed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 17, 2009

TRIMED, INCORPORATED, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STRYKER CORPORATION, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Manuel L. Real

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF STRYKER CORPORATION'S COUNTERCLAIMS OF NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

WHEREAS:

1. On March 28, 2006, TriMed, Inc. ("TriMed") filed its Complaint against Stryker Corporation ("Stryker") alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,931,839 ("the '839 patent").

2. Stryker answered on May 19, 2006, denying the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses, and alleging counterclaims seeking declarations of noninfringement and invalidity.

3. TriMed filed its reply to Stryker's counterclaims on June 6, 2006.

4. On April 6, 2009, Stryker filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the asserted claims are invalid because they are anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.

5. On May 21, 2009, the Court issued an order ("the May 21st Order") granting Stryker's motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the '839 patent are invalid because they are rendered obvious by the prior art. The May 21st Order further dismissed with prejudice TriMed's Complaint against Stryker.

6. The May 21st Order does not constitute a final judgment because it did not dispose of all the claims in the action. See Pause Technology LLC v. Tivo, Inc., 401 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Namely, the May 21st Order did not address Stryker's remaining counterclaims of patent invalidity or noninfringement.

7. The Parties have agreed to this Order dismissing Stryker's remaining counterclaims of patent invalidity and noninfringement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, without prejudice to refile the counterclaims if the Federal Circuit does not affirm the grant of summary judgment.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

a. The May 21st Order does not constitute a final judgment because it did not dispose of all the claims in the action. See Pause Technology LLC v. Tivo, Inc., 401 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Namely, the May 21st Order did not address Stryker's remaining counterclaims of patent invalidity or noninfringement.

b. Stryker's remaining counterclaims of patent invalidity and noninfringement are dismissed without prejudice.

c. Stryker does not waive its right to seek an exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 if the Court's order granting summary judgment is affirmed upon appellate review.

d. Summary Judgment having been entered on TriMed's Complaint, and Stryker's counterclaims having been dismissed without prejudice, final judgment is hereby entered in favor of Stryker and against TriMed.

Honorable Manuel L. Real Judge, United States District Court

20090617

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.