Case 2:20-cv-01650-PSG-JPR Document 53 Filed 04/09/24 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:682
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`JS-6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-01650-PSG-JPR
`STIPULATED CONSENT
`JUDGMENT AND
`PERMANENT INJUNCTION
`DKT [51]
`
`Olati LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`Haas Automation, Inc.,
`Defendant.
`
`Haas Automation, Inc.,
`Counterclaim Plaintiff,
`vs.
`
`Olati LLC,
`
`Counterclaim Defendant.
`
`1
`
`2:20-CV-01650-PSG-JPR
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01650-PSG-JPR Document 53 Filed 04/09/24 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:683
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`CONSENT JUDGMENT
`The parties having considered the facts and applicable law and having
`agreed to the entry of this Stipulated Consent Judgment and Permanent
`Injunction (“Consent Judgment”), and the parties having stipulated that there is
`no just reason for delaying entry of final judgment in this action between
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Olati LLC and Defendant and
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Haas Automation, Inc. (“Haas”), subject to approval by
`the Court.
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT
`Olati LLC is a Maryland limited liability company, having its
`1.
`principal place of business at 301 South Fremont Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland
`21230, with owners Slingshot Technologies LLC and Cotopaxi LLC
`(collectively, inclusive of Olati LLC and its owners, “Olati”). See Dkt. 1, 4.
`Olati filed its Complaint for patent infringement against
`2.
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Haas Automation, Inc. (“Haas”) on
`February 20, 2020 asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,136,432 (“the
`’432 Patent”).
`The ’432 Patent was originally assigned to Prototype Productions,
`3.
`Inc. (“PPI”), which is listed as the assignee of other U.S. Patents. The ’432
`Patent, along with the other patents in the ’432 Patent’s patent family (U.S.
`Patent Nos. 7,930,957 and 8,365,642 (the “Related Patents”), were assigned to
`Olati.
`Haas is a California corporation with a principal place of business
`4.
`at 2800 Sturgis Road, Oxnard, California, 93030 and owned by Haas Holdings,
`Inc. (“Haas Holdings”). See Dkt. 20, 21.
`Haas manufactures, sells, and offers for sale certain machining
`5.
`products, including computer numerical control (“CNC”) mills, lathes, rotaries
`
`2
`
`2:20-CV-01650-PSG-JPR
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01650-PSG-JPR Document 53 Filed 04/09/24 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:684
`
`
`
`and indexers, and tooling parts.
`6.
`Olati filed its Complaint for patent infringement against Haas on
`February 20, 2020 asserting infringement of the ’432 Patent. Dkt. # 1. On
`April 15, 2020, Haas filed its Answer and Counterclaims, seeking declaratory
`judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. Dkt. # 20. On December 23,
`2020, this Court granted Haas’ Motion to Stay Pending inter partes review of a
`petition challenging all claims of the Asserted Patent. Dkt. # 43, 46.
`7.
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States
`Patent & Trademark Office entered its final written decision, finding all claims
`of the Asserted Patent unpatentable. See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Olati, LLC,
`IPR2021-00145, Paper 29 at 2 (PTAB May 13, 2022). Olati appealed the
`PTAB’s final written decision and the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s
`decision. Olati LLC v. Haas Automation, Inc., No. 22-2027, 2023 WL
`7545048, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2023). Olati did not challenge the Federal
`Circuit’s determination.
`8.
`On March 22, 2024, Haas filed a Motion to Lift the Stay and Enter
`Judgement in Haas’ favor.
`
`FINDINGS OF LAW
`9.
`This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of
`the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`10.
`This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants and the subject matter
`of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, 1338(a), 2201, 2202, the patent
`laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et. seq. The parties
`submit to the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of enforcement of this
`Consent Judgment. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`1391(b) and 1400(b).
`11.
`Olati acknowledges and agrees that the ’432 Patent is invalid and
`
`
`2:20-CV-01650-PSG-JPR
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01650-PSG-JPR Document 53 Filed 04/09/24 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:685
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`unenforceable.
`12.
`Olati and PPI, and any of its successors, assignees, or licensees,
`hereby waive all rights to any claims for patent infringement—and agree and
`covenant not to sue, or cause any suit to be brought, or participate in any suit—
`against Haas, Haas Holdings, or any of its successors or related entities of any
`patent owned or controlled by or assigned to Olati or PPI.
`13.
`Haas and Olati shall each bear their own costs, expenses, and
`attorney fees.
`14.
`This Consent Judgment constitutes a final judgment concerning
`the subject matter of this action.
`15.
`Haas and Olati waive any right to appeal from this Consent
`Judgment.
`Upon entry of this Consent Judgment, this action is dismissed,
`16.
`with prejudice; provided, however, that this Court shall retain jurisdiction to
`enforce the terms and provisions of this Consent Judgment.
`17.
`This Consent Judgment shall be entered hereto, forthwith, without
`further notice.
`The Clerk is directed to enter this Consent Judgment forthwith.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 9, 2024
`
`
`
`The Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez
`United States District Judge
`
`4
`
`2:20-CV-01650-PSG-JPR
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket