IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 9, 2009
SCANTIBODIES LABORATORY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT
IMMUTOPICS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND IMMUTOPICS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mariana R. Pfaelzer United States District Court Judge
FINAL JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE '566 PATENT IN VIEW OF THE COURT'S SECOND AMENDED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
The motion of Defendants and Counterclaimants Immutopics, Inc. and Immutopics International, LLC (collectively "Immutopics") for summary judgment of non-infringement of United States Patent No. 6,689,566 (the "'566 Patent"), as reexamined*fn1 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office came on regularly for hearing on April 20, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer, United States District Court Judge, presiding. Matthew A. Newboles and Benjamin N. Diederich of Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker and Gary A. Pemberton of Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP appeared on behalf of Immutopics. Rod S. Berman and Brian W. Kasell of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Scantibodies Laboratory, Inc. ("Scantibodies").
The Court, having fully considered the parties' pleadings and the evidence therein, and having entertained oral argument, has issued its Order granting Immutopics' Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement on April 23, 2009 ("Order"). The Order provides that, in light of the Court's claim construction, the asserted claims of the reexamined '566 Patent*fn2 are not directly infringed by Immutopics, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Furthermore, because inducing patent infringement requires a predicate finding of direct infringement, Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Court's Order finding no direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) in light of the current claim construction, also means that there is no inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
Having disposed of all of the claims in Plaintiff's Complaint, this Court hereby dismisses, without prejudice, Defendants' counterclaims in this case as moot. It is noted that Defendants' counterclaims may be reinstated in the event the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reverses or remands this case back to this Court, without consideration of statute of limitations or laches affirmative defenses. It is further noted that in the event the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the finding of non-infringement or remands this case to this Court for further litigation on the issue of infringement, Plaintiff's claim of inducement of patent infringement may be reinstated without consideration of the statute of limitations or laches affirmative defenses.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that final judgment shall be entered in Immutopics' favor as the prevailing party and Scantibodies shall recover nothing on their complaint as outlined in the Court's April 23, 2009 Order Granting Summary Judgment:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, as the prevailing party, Immutopics is awarded its costs herein in an amount to be determined in accordance with the procedures required by Central District Local Rule 54.