Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 128 Filed 10/06/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 2231
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant,
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA
`
`
`
`
`
`CONSENT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF RULE 58 JUDGMENT
`
`Pursuant to Rule 58(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, Google LLC
`
`(“Google”), with the consent of Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”), respectfully
`
`moves the Court to enter an order directing the Clerk to enter a final Rule 58 Judgment resolving
`
`all claims in this Action on the following grounds:
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement based on a Complaint setting forth six
`
`claims for patent infringement. The Court has now entered two orders dismissing all the claims
`
`asserted against Google (Dkt. Nos. 118 and 121). Additionally, the Clerk entered a partial
`
`judgment for certain claims (ECF No. 119).
`
`2.
`
`Under the rules, once all claims have been adjudicated, judgment may be entered.
`
`See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a).
`
`3.
`
`The formal entry of Rule 58 Judgment provides definiteness and clarity for
`
`timetables and other events that are based upon the date of entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`58 Adv. Comm. Notes, 2002 Amendment (entry of Rule 58 Judgment facilitates determination of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant,
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA
`
`
`
`
`
`CONSENT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF RULE 58 JUDGMENT
`
`Pursuant to Rule 58(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, Google LLC
`
`(“Google”), with the consent of Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”), respectfully
`
`moves the Court to enter an order directing the Clerk to enter a final Rule 58 Judgment resolving
`
`all claims in this Action on the following grounds:
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement based on a Complaint setting forth six
`
`claims for patent infringement. The Court has now entered two orders dismissing all the claims
`
`asserted against Google (Dkt. Nos. 118 and 121). Additionally, the Clerk entered a partial
`
`judgment for certain claims (ECF No. 119).
`
`2.
`
`Under the rules, once all claims have been adjudicated, judgment may be entered.
`
`See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a).
`
`3.
`
`The formal entry of Rule 58 Judgment provides definiteness and clarity for
`
`timetables and other events that are based upon the date of entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`58 Adv. Comm. Notes, 2002 Amendment (entry of Rule 58 Judgment facilitates determination of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 128 Filed 10/06/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 2232
`
`the time periods for filing appeals under Appellate Rule 4(a), as well as motions under Federal
`
`Civil Rules 50, 52, 54(d), 59, and 60).
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Generally, a “judgment . . . must be set out in a separate document. . . .” Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 58(a). Here, at the direction of the Court (Dkt. No. 118), the Clerk entered partial judgment
`
`for certain claims adjudicated by stipulation (Dkt. No. 119). However, Rule 58 Judgment was not
`
`entered because four of the six claims for patent infringement were still pending at the time Dkt.
`
`No. 119 was entered. A decision on those claims did not occur until the Court subsequently
`
`adjudicated the claims in its September 18, 2023 memorandum opinion and order (Dkt. Nos. 120,
`
`121).
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Under the rules, “[a] party may request that judgment be set out in a separate
`
`document as required by Rule 58(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d). Entry of judgment at the request of
`
`a party “will protect all need for prompt commencement of the periods of motions, appeals, and
`
`execution or other enforcement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, Adv. Comm. Notes, 2002 Amendment.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`To obtain definiteness and clarity, Google respectfully requests that the Court enter
`
`an order directing the Clerk to enter Rule 58 Judgment dismissing all claims in this Action.
`
`7.
`
`Geoscope believes that judgment has already been entered in this case, but does not
`
`oppose this request to the extent it seeks greater clarity and confirms that appeal is proper at this
`
`time and consents for that limited purpose without waiver of any of its appellate rights.
`
`The parties waive a hearing on this procedural motion.
`
`WHEREFORE, Google, with the consent of Geoscope, requests that this Court enter an
`
`order directing the Clerk to enter Rule 58 Judgment on all claims in this action. A proposed order
`
`is submitted herewith.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 128 Filed 10/06/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 2233
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Stephen E. Noona
`Stephen E. Noona (VSB No. 25367)
`Clark J. Belote (VSB No. 87310)
`KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
`150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
`Norfolk, VA 23510-1665
`Telephone: (757) 624-3000
`Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
`senoona@kaufcan.com
`cjbelote@kaufcan.com
`
`
`Edward J. Bennett (VSB No. 40118)
`Adam D. Harber (pro hac vice)
`Andrew Trask (pro hac vice)
`Benjamin N. Hazelwood (VSB No. 96058)
`Michael Xun Liu (pro hac vice)
`Adam Pan (pro hac vice)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
`680 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone: (202) 434-5000
`ebennett@wc.com
`aharber@wc.com
`atrask@wc.com
`bhazelwood@wc.com
`mliu@wc.com
`apan@wc.com
`
`Counsel for Google LLC
`
`October 6, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 128 Filed 10/06/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 2234
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 6, 2023, I will electronically file the foregoing with the
`
`Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF) to
`
`all counsel of record, including:
`
`
`John M. Erbach (VSB No. 76695)
`Christopher W. Bascom (VSB No. 87302)
`SPOTTS FAIN, P.C.
`411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600
`Richmond, VA 23219
`Telephone: (804) 697-2044
`Facsimile: (804) 697-2144
`jerbach@spottsfain.com
`cbascom@spottsfain.com
`
`Timothy K. Gilman (pro hac vice)
`Saunak K. Desai (pro hac vice)
`Gregory R. Springsted (pro hac vice)
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`180 Maiden Lane
`New York, NY 10038
`Telephone: (212) 806-5400
`Facsimile: (212) 806-6006
`tgilman@stroock.cm
`sdesai@stroock.com
`gspringsted@stroock.com
`
`Counsel for Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21880217.v3
`
`4
`
`
`
` /s/ Stephen E. Noona
`
`Stephen E. Noona (VSB No. 25367)
`Clark J. Belote (VSB No. 87310)
`KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
`150 West Main Street, Suite 2100
`Norfolk, VA 23510
`Telephone: (757) 624-3000
`Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
`senoona@kaufcan.com
`cjbelote@kaufcan.com
`
`Counsel for Google LLC
`
`
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
