`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`ERICSSON. INC., ET AL.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`vs.
`
`D-LINK CORPORATION. ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CASE NO. 6:10-CV-473
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b)
`
`On September 14, 2010, Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson”)
`
`filed this action against D-Link Corporation1 and D-Link Systems, Inc. (“D-Link”), Netgear, Inc.
`
`(“Netgear”), Acer, Inc. and Acer America Corporation (“Acer”) and Gateway, Inc. (“Gateway”).
`
`Ericsson filed an amended complaint on June 8, 2011. The amended complaint added the
`
`following defendants: Dell, Inc. (“Dell”); Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc.,2 Toshiba
`
`America Information Systems, Inc., and Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC (“Toshiba”);
`
`and Belkin International, Inc. (“Belkin”). Intel Corporation (“Intel”) intervened in this action on
`
`June 22, 2012, and Ericsson brought a counterclaim against Intel on July 3, 2012. The Court
`
`conducted an eight day trial beginning June 3, 2013. Final judgment is now appropriate because
`
`all issues between Ericsson and the Defendants have been finally resolved by either the jury or
`
`the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (Docket No. 615).
`
`
`1 The Court dismissed D-Link Corporation on January 31, 2011. Docket No. 54.
`2 The Court dismissed Toshiba America, Inc. and Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC on August 16, 2011.
`Docket No. 120.
`
`Broadcom v. Ericsson
`IPR2013-00636
`Ericsson Ex. 2018
`
`
`
`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 616 Filed 08/08/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 26060
`
`Therefore, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consistent with
`
`the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, and the Court having expressly determined that
`
`there is no just cause for delay, the Court ORDERS AND ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENT as
`
`follows:
`
` Defendants D-Link, Netgear, and Belkin are found to infringe Claims 1 and 5 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568. Defendants Acer/Gateway, Dell, Toshiba, and Intel
`
`are found to infringe Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568.
`
` Defendants D-Link, Netgear, Belkin, Acer/Gateway, Dell, Toshiba, and Intel are
`
`found to infringe Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625.
`
` Defendants D-Link, Netgear, Belkin, Acer/Gateway, Dell, Toshiba, and Intel are
`
`found to not infringe Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,330,435.
`
` Defendants D-Link, Netgear, Belkin, Acer/Gateway, Dell, Toshiba, and Intel are
`
`found to infringe Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215.
`
` Defendants Acer/Gateway, Dell, Toshiba, and Intel are found to not infringe
`
`Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,519,223.
`
` The Asserted Claims are valid.
`
` Defendants’ infringement was not willful.
`
` The Court awards the following in damages to Ericsson for Defendants’
`
`infringement of the claims found infringed: $435,000 for D-Link; $3,555,000 for
`
`Netgear; $1,170,000 for Acer/Gateway; $1,920,000 for Dell; $2,445,000 for
`
`Toshiba; and $600,000 for Belkin.
`
` Ericsson is further awarded pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and an
`
`ongoing royalty as detailed in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 616 Filed 08/08/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 26061
`
`
`
`All relief not specifically granted herein is DENIED. All pending motions not previously
`
`resolved are DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`__________________________________
`LEONARD DAVIS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 8th day of August, 2013.
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
