Case 1:13-cv-11567-DJC Document 77 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY and THE
`PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-11567
`
`))))))))))
`
`STIPULATION REGARDING GILLETTE’S COMMERCIAL RAZOR BLADES
`
`1.
`
`WHEREAS Plaintiff Zond, LLC (f/k/a Zond, Inc.) (“Zond”) and defendants The
`
`Gillette Company and The Procter & Gamble Company (collectively, “Gillette”) are parties to
`
`this patent infringement case involving U.S. Patent Nos. 6,896,773; 6,896,775; 7,147,759;
`
`6,853,142; 7,604,716; 7,811,421; 6,805,779; 7,808,184; 8,125,155; and 6,806,652 (collectively,
`
`“the Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`2.
`
`WHEREAS Zond has claimed, among other things, that the magnetron sputtering
`
`processes used to manufacture certain of Gillette’s commercial razor blades, including without
`
`limitation Fusion, Fusion Power, Venus, Fusion ProGlide, and Fusion ProGlide Power
`
`(collectively, “Gillette’s Commercial Razor Blades”), infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`3.
`
`WHEREAS Gillette has filed counterclaims against Zond seeking a declaratory
`
`judgment that Gillette’s Commercial Razor Blades do not infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`4.
`
`WHEREAS Gillette represents that, in the last 10 years, the only magnetron
`
`sputtering processes that Gillette has used to manufacture its commercial razor blades were
`
`performed using the systems and processes described in Gillette’s responses to Zond’s
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 10, and in the documents produced by Gillette in this action to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY and THE
`PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-11567
`
`))))))))))
`
`STIPULATION REGARDING GILLETTE’S COMMERCIAL RAZOR BLADES
`
`1.
`
`WHEREAS Plaintiff Zond, LLC (f/k/a Zond, Inc.) (“Zond”) and defendants The
`
`Gillette Company and The Procter & Gamble Company (collectively, “Gillette”) are parties to
`
`this patent infringement case involving U.S. Patent Nos. 6,896,773; 6,896,775; 7,147,759;
`
`6,853,142; 7,604,716; 7,811,421; 6,805,779; 7,808,184; 8,125,155; and 6,806,652 (collectively,
`
`“the Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`2.
`
`WHEREAS Zond has claimed, among other things, that the magnetron sputtering
`
`processes used to manufacture certain of Gillette’s commercial razor blades, including without
`
`limitation Fusion, Fusion Power, Venus, Fusion ProGlide, and Fusion ProGlide Power
`
`(collectively, “Gillette’s Commercial Razor Blades”), infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`3.
`
`WHEREAS Gillette has filed counterclaims against Zond seeking a declaratory
`
`judgment that Gillette’s Commercial Razor Blades do not infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`4.
`
`WHEREAS Gillette represents that, in the last 10 years, the only magnetron
`
`sputtering processes that Gillette has used to manufacture its commercial razor blades were
`
`performed using the systems and processes described in Gillette’s responses to Zond’s
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 10, and in the documents produced by Gillette in this action to
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-11567-DJC Document 77 Filed 05/06/14 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`date (including, e.g., Bates Nos. PG-Zond 000001-248; PG-Zond 000296-390; PG-Zond
`
`000391-481; PG-Zond 000482-781; PG-Zond 000782-952; PG-Zond 000955-989; PG-Zond
`
`000990-1099; and PG-Zond 1686-1773).
`
`5.
`
`WHEREAS Gillette represents that its interrogatory responses accurately describe
`
`the magnetron sputtering processes Gillette has used and continues to use to manufacture its
`
`commercial razor blades over the last 10 years, and that the documents it has produced to date
`
`(including, e.g., Bates Nos. PG-Zond 000001-248; PG-Zond 000296-390; PG-Zond 000391-
`
`481; PG-Zond 000482-781; PG-Zond 000782-952; PG-Zond 000955-989; PG-Zond 000990-
`
`1099; and PG-Zond 1686-1773) accurately describe and illustrate Gillette’s magnetron sputtering
`
`methods and systems used to manufacture its commercial razor blades in the last 10 years.
`
`BASED ON THE ABOVE REPRESENTATIONS, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED,
`
`CONSENTED, AND AGREED TO by and between the parties hereto as follows:
`
`6.
`
`To narrow the issues in dispute, Zond hereby withdraws its claims that Gillette’s
`
`Commercial Razor Blades infringe the Patents-in-Suit and Gillette hereby withdraws its
`
`counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that Gillette’s Commercial Razor Blades do not
`
`infringe the Patents-in-Suit. Based on the above representations in paragraphs 4 and 5, these
`
`withdrawals are with prejudice and the parties stipulate to the dismissal of such claims with
`
`prejudice.
`
`7.
`
`The parties maintain all other claims and defenses asserted in this action,
`
`including without limitation any claims and defenses related to infringement or non-infringement
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit based upon Gillette’s research and development activities, any claims and
`
`defenses related to the validity or invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit, and any claims and defenses
`
`related to costs and/or fees.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-11567-DJC Document 77 Filed 05/06/14 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY AND THE
`PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher R. Noyes
`
`Mark G. Matuschak, BBO # 543873
`Larissa Bifano Park, BBO # 663105
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`mark.matuschak@wilmerhale.com
`Larissa.park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`Christopher R. Noyes, BBO # 654324
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`christopher.noyes@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SO STIPULATED
`
`ZOND, LLC
`
`/s/ Tigran Vardanian
`
`David S. Godkin (BBO#196530)
`Andrew A. Caffrey III (BBO#660481)
`Birnbaum & Godkin, LLP
`280 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02210
`617-307-6100
`godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com
`caffrey@birnbaumgodkin.com
`
`
`
`David C. Radulescu, Ph.D.
`Tigran Vardanian
`Etai Lahav
`Gregory S. Maskel
`Robin M. Davis
`Daniel Kesack
`RADULESCU LLP
`136 Madison Ave, 6th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`646-502-5950
`david@radulescullp.com
`tigran@radulescullp.com
`etai@radulescullp.com
`greg@radulescullp.com
`robin@radulescullp.com
`daniel@radulescullp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED this ____ day of ___________________, 2014
`
`
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-11567-DJC Document 77 Filed 05/06/14 Page 4 of 4
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Christopher R. Noyes, hereby certify that on May 6, 2014, a true and correct copy of
`
`the above document was served upon counsel of record for the plaintiff through the Court’s
`
`electronic court filing (ECF) system.
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher R. Noyes
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
