United States District Court, D. Delaware
E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, DE
Monte M. Bond, Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, and
Terry Saad, BRAGALONE CONROY P.C., Dallas, TX Attorneys for
B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, MORRIS, NICHOLS,
ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE Gianni Cutri, Joel
Merkin, and Rajat Khanna, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Chicago,
IL Michael W. De Vries, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Los
Angeles, CA Adam R. Alper and James Beard, KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, San Francisco, CA Attorneys for Sharp Electronics
Gabrielle Kraman, YOUNG, CONAWAY, STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP,
Wilmington, DE Rex Hwang, Stanley M. Gibson, and Jessica
Newman, JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP, Los
Angeles, CA Attorneys for Vizio, Inc.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are Wi-LAN Inc.'s ("Wi-LAN" or
"Plaintiff') motion for entry of final judgment of
noninfringement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)
(D.I. 502) and Defendants Sharp Electronics Corporation
("SEC") and Vizio, Inc.'s ("Vizio"
and, collectively with SEC, "Defendants") motion
for judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 6, 490,
250, or in the alternative, to dismiss Wi-LAN's
infringement claim (D.I. 499).
initially a three-patent case, there are no longer any viable
infringement claims in this action.
November 2017, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed U.S. Patent
No. 5, 847, 774. (D.I. 216)
February 14, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment of
noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 6, 359, 654 (the
"'654 patent"). (See D.I. 487, 488)
meantime, after the Court issued its claim construction
opinion and order on April 27, 2018 (D.I. 280, 281),
Plaintiff on May 15, 2018 indicated to Defendants its
willingness to stipulate to noninfringement of U.S. Patent
No. 6, 490, 250 (the '"250 patent").
(See D.I. 503 Ex. A) Although the parties soon
thereafter stopped actively litigating the '250 patent,
the parties were never able to agree on how to terminate the
case with respect to the '250 patent. On March 6, 2019,
Plaintiff unilaterally filed a proposed stipulation of
noninfringement ("Stipulation"). (See D.I.
496) The next day, Defendants wrote to advise the Court they
did not agree with the Stipulation, which in their view
contained "inaccurate information" and
'"undisputed facts' that are not agreed to by
the parties." (D.I. 497) The Court then directed the
parties to file "any motions for judgment or dismissal
with respect to the '250 patent" (D.I. 498), which
they subsequently did. Those motions are now fully briefed
(see, e.g., D.I. 500, 502, 506-07, 509-10) and ripe
Plaintiffs Rule 54(b) Motion for Entry of Final
"agrees, based on the Court's Memorandum Opinion on
Claim Construction and the current record, that it cannot
prove that the accused products meet certain limitations of
[the '250 patent]." (D.I. 502 at 1) Plaintiff, thus,
requests that the Court enter final judgment on Plaintiffs
claims for infringement of the '654 and '250 patents
and Defendants' counterclaims of noninfringement, and
dismiss without prejudice Defendants' counterclaims for
invalidity of the '654 and '250 patents.
(Id. at 1-2) Defendants contend that Plaintiffs
motion is procedurally improper, factually inaccurate, and
legally unsupportable. (See generally D.I. 507)
Court may grant a Rule 54(b) motion if (1) there is a
"final judgment" or "an ultimate disposition
of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple
claims action," and (2) "there are no just reasons
to delay the appeal of individual final judgments."