United States District Court, C.D. California, Eastern Division
GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, Michael P. Kahn (admitted
pro hac vice), Romeao Jennings (SBN 281568) Attorneys for
Plaintiffs 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company
S.W. LEW Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew United States District Court
3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company
(“3M”) and Defendant K2 Concepts
(“K2”) (collectively, the “Parties”)
have agreed to settle all claims among them in the
above-captioned matter, pursuant to a confidential Settlement
Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), and to
entry of this Consent Judgement. The Court, being advised of
the Parties' agreement, HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1338(a) and personal jurisdiction over
the Parties. Venue is proper in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1391(b) and 1400(b).
Plaintiff 3M Innovative Properties Company is the assignee
and owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 820, 824; 7, 374, 111; 8,
002, 200; 8, 424, 780; 8, 628, 026; 8, 955, 770; and 9, 211,
553 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). 3M
Company is the exclusive licensee of the Patents-in-Suit. The
Patents-in-Suit are generally directed to systems and methods
for spraying liquids, such as spray guns, and liquid
reservoirs for such systems, including disposable lids and
claims of the Patents-in-Suit are valid and enforceable.
acknowledges and agrees that it has infringed at least one
claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit by using, offering for
sale, and selling disposable lids and liners for use in
3M's PPS™ paint system, in violation of 35 U.S.C.
and its respective officers, agents, representatives,
affiliates, assignees, successors, and all persons acting on
behalf of or at the direction of, or in concert or
participation with K2 are hereby permanently enjoined from
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing into
the United States any products that infringe the
Patents-in-Suit, from inducing others to infringe the
Patents-in-Suit, and from contributing to the infringement of
the Patents-in-Suit. This injunction shall not extend beyond
the expiration of the Patents-in-Suit.
agrees not to challenge, or cause to be challenged, directly
or indirectly, the validity and/or enforceability of the
Patents-in-Suit in any court or tribunal, including the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. K2 further agrees
not to directly or indirectly aid, assist, or participate in
any action or proceeding contesting the validity or
enforceability of the Patents-in-Suit. The foregoing two
sentences, however, shall not prevent K2 from responding to a
valid subpoena issued by a court or governmental agency of
Court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the
terms of this Consent Judgement and the Settlement Agreement.
acknowledges and agrees that any violation of this Consent
Judgment would constitute contempt of this Court's order,
and therefore subject K2, in addition to any other remedies
available to 3M at law or equity, to civil and criminal
K2 is found by the Court to be in contempt of, or otherwise
to have violated this Consent Judgement, and/or to have
breached the Settlement Agreement, 3M will suffer irreparable
harm. In addition to equitable remedies available for
contempt or violation of this Consent Judgement, and/or for
breach of the Settlement Agreement, 3M shall be entitled to
any damages caused by K2's contempt or violation of this
Consent Judgement and/or breach of the Settlement Agreement,
and to recover its attorneys' fees, costs, and other
expenses incurred in enforcing the Consent Judgment and/or
the Settlement Agreement.
acknowledges and agrees that any infringement of the
Patents-in-Suit after the date of this Consent Judgment would
constitute willful and egregious misconduct and would warrant
enhanced, treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
Other than provided in paragraph 9 of this Consent Judgement,
each party shall bear ...